How to refute "eternal security" or "OSAS"

[Farsight001]

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

Of course I’m not. Quit running from the issue like a coward.

You’re projecting again.

Again? I was never accused of projecting a first time.

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

It’s official.

Not going to stop the moderators from taking action. Why in the world you would put me on ignore when I was trying to help you keep from getting banned is beyond me, though.

 

[William_C]

This message is hidden because Farsight001 is on your ignore list.

 

[William_C]

**To all those participating in this thread (or taking the time to read it)…
**

I ask people to consider this recent quote from William C:

…and then read the first part of what I stated in Post #93 and ask yourselves how correct is William C’s statement that he “hasn’t interpreted anything.”

Has William C demonstrated the doctrine of OSAS with the plain words of Scripture, or does he rely on extrapolations beyond what Scripture actually states?

Extrapolations = interpretations!!!

**To all those participating in this thread (or taking the time to read it)…
**

When asked questions about a verse, or when told that the statement of a passage isn’t simple, I’ve answered the questions with comments on the meaning of the words, and the passages.

However, I’ve not initiated “interpretations” as other charge, but have only pointed them to the words of the Lord.

 

[William_C]

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!

By definition, a creature is not free:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him. Jn 3:16

Men are volitional, but scripture doesn’t describe men as free.

 

[William_C]

I’m not quite done! Lastly I’ll provide one verse (there are MANY) that clearly refutes the notion of OSAS in clear, unambiguous terms (unlike “my sheep”). So as to be consistent with our initial conversation, I’ll pick a verse that deals with the very same issues that were being faced by the Philippians(judaizers insisting that circumcision was part of Christianity) and which is also written by Paul, but to the Galatians. The verse is Galatians 5:4 highlighted below. Here’s the opening verses of Galatians Ch 5 for context:

For freedom Christ set us free; so stand firm and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery. It is I, Paul, who am telling you that if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you.Once again I declare to every man who has himself circumcisedc that he is bound to observe the entire law.You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we await the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

The Galatians were experiencing the very same issues as the Philippians: Jewish converts trying to add the OT covenant of circumcision (and other stuff) to the NT covenant of grace.

For freedom Christ set us free; so stand firm and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery.

Note that Paul uses US to describe his audience: those who have been “set…free” by Christ. They are “saved” Christians. People you would describe as those included in Christ’s “my sheep”. Notice also that Paul says do not submit AGAIN to the yoke of slavery. Why? They were former Jews who had submitted to it and had been freed of it by Christ and Paul is warning them not to submit to it again. And why does he warn them? Read on…

Just because Paul uses “US” to describe his audience doesn’t mean everyone in his audience is saved. That’s absurd.

Suppose a Christian who had died had been a fervent witness of his faith to nothing but atheists, and in the process of that witness he had befriended many atheists who were in attendance at his funeral, and the minister of the funeral service, during the service, continuously refers to the congregation as “us” with regards to truths that pertain to Christians.

You wouldn’t assert that because the minister uses “US” that everyone in the service was a believer. The same is true of those Paul is addressing.

"… if you have yourselves circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you."

Very interesting. IF you choose to enter into the old covenant, THEN Christ will be of no benefit to you. Hmmm that’s interesting because Paul has already said the Christ had “set them free” - most definitely a benefit! But now Paul says that choosing circumcision (over Grace) means that Christ “will be” - future tense - “of no benefit to you.” No vague terms, no metaphors requiring interpretation. If you choose to be circumcised you lose the benefits of Christ - his covenant of grace based upon the Cross. You cannot enter Heaven without that benefit William.

…I declare to every man who has himself circumcisedthat he is bound to observe the entire law.You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Let’s start with the last 5 words: “you have fallen from grace”. OSAS holds that we cannot fall from grace, does it not? But there it is in plain english. One cannot “fall from” something they have not already taken part in.

No, OSAS doesn’t assert that one cannot fall from grace. What OSAS asserts is that “falling from grace,” ≠ “loss of salvation.”

That “falling from grace” = “loss of salvation” is a Catholic idea, which no Catholic has ever proven to my satisfaction.

Philthy:

Paul’s comment implies that they are - or were - in a state of grace and that by trying to be justified by the law, they have “separated themselves from Christ” and have “fallen from grace”. You cannot go to Heaven if you are not in a state of grace, and have separated yourself from Christ because Christ will be no benefit to you. Lastly notice the underlined terms here…

Your assertion is that Paul is indicting some people of having fallen because they are trying to be justified by the law. Paul isn’t doing that at all.

If you read what he says more carefully, he is simply asserting a truth: those attempting to be justified by the law are not going to be justified by grace, but must keep the entire law. That’s the theme of the epistle. But Paul isn’t accusing those in his hearing of doing that.

And what I say is easily supported by Paul’s statement in v10, in which Paul says he is confident that none of those he is addressing have attempted to be justified by the law, but that they will remain faithful to Christ.

I don’t find your explanation to prove salvation can be lost. Far from it.

 

[bmonk]

Jesus says nothing in that verse (John 10:27) about the sheep following Him being a requirement, but asserts the truth that His follow Him. Jesus is asserting a truth about His sheep.

If it is true that His sheep follow him, then following him is a requirement to be one of his sheep. To not follow would be to show that you are not one of his sheep.

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. 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.

Read 1 John, in it, the apostle gives a number of “tests” for determining 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)?

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

We learned from experience the truth of not knowing you are saved. Back in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, he speaks of those so sure of their faith and of being saved that they presented themselves for trial and martyrdom. Some then apostatized and left the faith. I’ve also seen others being sure of salvation for 10 or 20 years, but then drifting away. So my question is, how can you be so sure you are saved, and will persist to the end? What exactly gives you that assurance?

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.

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

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

We don’t roll the dice. I’m using “chance” as an opportunity, not a probability. We say that we must cooperate with God’s grace, continue to be open to it. If we rebel, as Ezekiel says, in 18:4-32, if the just man turns from justice to sin, he will die; if the wicked man turns from sin to justice he will live. Jesus saves–but it’s not a magic “get out of hell free” card so much as a living relationship that saves you. Jesus saves, but we must accept it, since he will not force us to be saved.

 

[William_C]

If it is true that His sheep follow him, then following him is a requirement to be one of his sheep.

That’s not what the passage says. It is what you believe, but it’s not what the passage says.

bmonk:

To not follow would be to show that you are not one of his sheep.

Not necessarily. One could be engaged in sin, and thus not following, but sinning doesn’t make one not a sheep, but a sheep that is sinning.

bmonk:

We learned from experience the truth of not knowing you are saved. Back in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, he speaks of those so sure of their faith and of being saved that they presented themselves for trial and martyrdom. Some then apostatized and left the faith. I’ve also seen others being sure of salvation for 10 or 20 years, but then drifting away. So my question is, how can you be so sure you are saved, and will persist to the end? What exactly gives you that assurance?

I believe I’ve referred you to 1 John, if I haven’t read 1 Jn. In it, John lists some “tests” to determine whether or not you are in the faith.

bmonk:

We don’t roll the dice. I’m using “chance” as an opportunity, not a probability. We say that we must cooperate with God’s grace, continue to be open to it. If we rebel, as Ezekiel says, in 18:4-32, if the just man turns from justice to sin, he will die; if the wicked man turns from sin to justice he will live.

That’s physical death, which is the punishment for certain disobedience in the Old Testament. It is not necessarily spiritual death and condemnation to hell. The elect of God will never perish.

bmonk:

Jesus saves–but it’s not a magic “get out of hell free” card so much as a living relationship that saves you. Jesus saves, but we must accept it, since he will not force us to be saved.

God saves those elected to salvation, and He assures that those He chooses to save will believe. There is nothing involving force with that.

 

[kempo1]

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

Explain why having salvation means you no longer have to work out your salvation, especially when Catholics believe salvation is a process?
You have repeatedly said you believe in osas not me you contradict yourself, you know what the answer is you should ask yourself this question.
No.

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

No it goes against the word of God and i am quite content on what i believe through apostolic teaching from THE ONE HOLY CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH ! Not some man made doctrine.

 

[William_C]

No it goes against the word of God…

No it doesn’t.

 

[kempo1]

By definition, a creature is not free:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him. Jn 3:16

Men are volitional, but scripture doesn’t describe men as free.

Free will:
John7-17 if anyone is willing to do his will, he will know of the teaching, wetherit is of God, or whether i speak from myself
Mark7:23 “all these evil things proceed from within and defile the man”
Romans12:2 and do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind so that you prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect
John8:34 Jesus answered them “Truly, truly, i say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin”
2Corinth3:17 Now the Lord is spirit, and where the spirit of the Lord is, THERE IS LIBERTY
Jeremiah31:30 but everyone will die for his own iniquity, each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge:thumbsup:

 

[William_C]

Free will:
John7-17 if anyone is willing to do his will, he will know of the teaching, wetherit is of God, or whether i speak from myself
Mark7:23 “all these evil things proceed from within and defile the man”
Romans12:2 and do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind so that you prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect
John8:34 Jesus answered them “Truly, truly, i say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave of sin”
2Corinth3:17 Now the Lord is spirit, and where the spirit of the Lord is, THERE IS LIBERTY
Jeremiah31:30 but everyone will die for his own iniquity, each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge:thumbsup:

For what reason are you posting these verses?

 

[kempo1]

For what reason are you posting these verses?

Well if you dont see free will in these i wont waste my time posting the rest which there are many that clearly demonstrate free will that you and calvin and luther deny.

 

[William_C]

Well if you dont see free will in these i wont waste my time posting the rest which there are many that clearly demonstrate free will that you and calvin and luther deny.

Those verses are about free will? How are about free will?

 

[kempo1]

Well if you dont see free will in these i wont waste my time posting the rest which there are many that clearly demonstrate free will that you and calvin and luther deny.

again:shrug:

 

[William_C]

again:shrug:

I see. You are unable to explain how those verses prove men have free will, and because you are unable to explain that, you think I should just take your word for it?

It doesn’t work that way.

I have no idea how those verses prove free will, and it seems you don’t either.

 

[EricFilmer]

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

And then after referring me to the words of the Lord you told me what you claim it means. After all, the exact words you said immediately after this referral were, “It means the Father chooses who He will save…” (emphasis added). As soon as you stated, “It means” you indicated that you were making an interpretation. And yet you continually deny making any interpretations in this thread.

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

I’m not ignoring anything. Here is the exact statement I made to which you are referring:
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.

So if you want to make a proper rebuttal then the challenge for you is to provide a Scripture quote that clearly states the doctrine of OSAS without your non-biblical extrapolations (i.e., without you having to say, “It means” or some such).

Scripture does not contain your words.

Exactly what words of mine are you referring to?

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

First of all, are you now saying that it is ok to formulate Christian doctrine on what the Bible doesn’t say? If so then you are not a true adherent of Sola Scriptura (which states that a doctrine must be clearly presented in Scripture in order to be valid) and therefore you should be open to believing in a number of Catholic doctrines which are mostly derived from Sacred Tradition.

Secondly, the Bible doesn’t have to say, “The apostles interpreted what they wrote” because the Bible readily shows them doing it. I thought that this was so obvious that I didn’t need to give examples, but it looks like that is now in order. Keep in mind that, according to most Protestant and Catholic Scripture scholars, the written form of each gospel arose from an earlier oral format (so it is possible for an epistle to interpret a particular gospel teaching whose written version occurred at a later time).

1John 1:5-10 contains an interpretation of John 3:21
1John 2:3-6 contains interpretations of John 13:15; 14:21 & 23; 15:10.
In John 2:18-22, John records the words of Jesus concerning the destruction of the Temple and then provides the correct interpretation of its meaning.
Hebrews 5:7-10 contains an interpretation of Mt 26:36-46 (and elsewhere in the gospels).
James 5:12 contains an interpretation of Mt 5:37.
2Peter 17-21 contains an interpretation of Mk 9:2 (and elsewhere in the gospels).
Romans 2:6-11 is an interpretation of Mt 16:27.
Romans 2:28 is an interpretation of Mt3:9.
1Cor 6:1 is an interpretation of Mt 18:17.

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.

I have done nothing dishonestly. I never claimed that you said the apostles “didn’t interpret the Old Testament.” I said that they interpreted “Scripture”, and my intention was meant to imply both the Old and the New Testament. And seeing as I have now provided several Scripture passages showing apostolic interpretations of apostolic writings, my earlier critique of your stance still stands. Namely, an examination of the New Testament shows that your position that the apostles did not interpret their own writings is demonstrably false.

…

“…” ?

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.

I didn’t “just offer my opinion” but in the post in question I referred to your own elaboration on the topic of what it means for something to be apostolic. I clearly posted your exact words and then drew conclusions from it (as can be readily seen in Post #91). If you feel that I have inaccurately assessed your position concerning what the designation “apostolic” means, or if you want to revise it, all you needed to do was simply correct the record.

See request above.

“See request above” = dodge the point. It seems that you now realize that the way in which you previously defined the term “apostolic” is detrimental to your position, which is why you are refusing to address what I stated concerning it.

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

Well, ok, then I respond with, “Jesus did not believe in OSAS and neither did the apostles; that’s good enough for me.” So how well do our statements work in terms of a proper debate? They don’t really work at all. It looks like your attempts to refute my points will have to be a bit more substantive.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

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.

What you are not taking into account is that the Bible often speaks of salvation is a manner known as “realized eschatology.” This means that some Scripture passages speak about ones future salvation (which is spoken of in its fullness) as something that one can start living now (which is done in a limited way). But let us set that aside for the moment and address whether or not the Bible teaches that salvation can be lost. But seeing as I am defending Catholic teaching, I think the statement “salvation can be lost” is more accurately understood (by Catholics) in the belief that it is possible for a person to be in state of grace (and therefore be set to inherit the kingdom of heaven) and, in this life, do something to fall out of state of grace (and therefore be condemned to hell if such a person dies without being properly reconciled with God).

Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart,
leading you to fall away from the living God.
But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called “today,”
that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
For we share in Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end,
while it is said, “Today, when you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.” (Hebrews 3:12-15, RSV, emphasis added)

For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,
and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come,
if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. (Hebrews 6:4-6, RSV, emphasis added)

What is meant by “impossible” in this passage is debated among Scripture scholars. Some see this as an indication of an excessive hardening of ones heart to the point that one will refuse to repent. Others see it as a reminder that one cannot be baptized a second time. But the point I’m making by bringing this up is that this clearly states that a person can be “enlightened”, “taste the heavenly gift”, be a “partaker of the Holy Spirit”, “taste the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come” and then fall from such a state.

Speaking to the Apostles, Jesus said, “…and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved” (Matthew 10:22, RSV)
If Jesus taught OSAS then why do the Apostles need to “endure to the end” in order to “be saved”?

”Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God. (Romans 5:2, RSV)
If Paul believed in OSAS then why did he speak of a “”hope of sharing the glory of God”? Why did he not say “assurance” instead? A person does not “hope” to attain something that is already established as a certainty.

”…having the eyes of your hearts enlightened, that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints” (Eph 1:18, RSV)
Once again, if Paul believes in OSAS then why does he speak of “hoping” to attain the “glorious inheritance of the saints”?

”…that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead” (Philippians 3:11, RSV).
If Paul believed in OSAS then why did he say “if possible” about his own resurrection? Once again, where is the language of certainty one would expect from a believer in OSAS?

So if the ancients didn’t write about it, they must have missed it.

That’s another way of saying that OSAS is not an apostolic teaching.

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

And yet I and others in this thread can say the exact same thing to you: “I’ve pointed you to the words of Jesus, William. That will do.” Well, did this “do it for you”? I’m guessing not. So why do you think it suffices to say that it will do it for us?

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

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

I never said that I was confining myself to just the verses you decided to cited. I’m considering this subject in the context of the rest of the New Testament as well. For example:

”For this is the will of my Father,
that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life” (John 6:40, RSV, emphasis added).

Therefore, believing in Jesus is contingent upon receiving eternal life. This is backed up with:
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son,
that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.
He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:16-18, RSV)

And he called for lights and rushed in,
and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas,
and brought them out and said, “Men, what must I do to be saved?”
And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” (Acts 16:29-31, RSV)

”…if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord
and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,
you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9, RSV)

But, as I’ve stated before, the question at hand is: What does it mean to believe in Jesus?
Here is what Scripture says:

Believing in Jesus Includes Obeying His Teachings
…the Father loves the Son, and has given all things into his hand.
He who believes in the Son has eternal life;
he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him. (John 3:35-36, RSV)

"If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15, RSV)

”He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me;
and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him." (John 14:21, RSV)

And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
He who says “I know him” but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
but whoever keeps his word, in him truly love for God is perfected. (1John 2:3-5, RSV)

Believing in Jesus Includes Being His Follower
”He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.” (Matthew 12:30, RSV)

Believing in Jesus Includes Imitating His Example
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do” (John 14:12, RSV)

By this we may be sure that we are in him:
he who says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. (1John 2:5-6, RSV)

Beloved, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God;
and we receive from him whatever we ask, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him.
And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.
All who keep his commandments abide in him, and he in them. And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us. (1John 3:21-24, RSV)

Believing in Jesus Includes Not Denying Him
So every one who acknowledges me before men,
I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven;
but whoever denies me before men,
I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 10:32-33, RSV)

Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ?
This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.
No one who denies the Son has the Father. He who confesses the Son has the Father also.
Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then you will abide in the Son and in the Father.
And this is what he has promised us, eternal life. (1John 2:22-25, RSV)

Believing in Jesus Means Doing Works of Mercy
Matthew 25:31-40 – The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats

By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us;
and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
But if any one has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?
Little children, let us not love in word or speech but in deed and in truth.
By this we shall know that we are of the truth, and reassure our hearts before him. (1John 3:16-19, RSV)

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead. (James 2:24-26, RSV)

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

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

No, those four words do not rule out the possibility that the “sheep” are free to reject Jesus, and therefore cease being “sheep.” The sheep represent those who believe in Jesus (as explained in the Scripture passages I quoted above) and persevere in their faith (Hebrews 3:12-15).

”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.

From a grammatical point (in terms of English), I would say that your interpretation is possible, but not likely. The statement is, “No one shall snatch them from out of my hand.” Generally speaking, it takes an outside agent to snatch someone “from out” of something. I think one could make an argument for an exception, but the question is whether or not Greek or Aramaic allows for such an exception (and I don’t know them well enough to say). But it just seems awkward from a linguistic standpoint to suggest that when Jesus said, “No one shall snatch them from out of my hand” he intended us to also conclude that a person cannot snatch himself from out of his hand either.

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

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.

No, many do not see it unless they, like you, make extrapolations beyond the plain words of Scripture. Plus, as I have pointed out, it was not until after the Reformation that anyone saw it, which indicates that the OSAS doctrine is an invention of certain Reformers.

As do you regarding your interpretation.

I do not claim to be infallible, but I acknowledge that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is. OSAS is not supported by Magisterial teaching, nor can it be shown to be apostolic.

No one is infallible, Eric.

Then I suggest that you cease making infallible-sounding statements, such as:

Post #39) “Philthy, in light of what Jesus says in John 10:28 regarding the impossibility of the perishing of those to whom He’s given eternal life, it is you who is not understanding the verses you’ve cited.”

Post #105) “Sure there is, Eric, it’s just that you’re in denial about it.”

After all, you seem to think that any interpretation of Scripture which contradicts your understanding of it results from things such as me “being in denial,” and from Philthy “not understanding Scripture”, etc. In light of all this, you act as if it is impossible for your interpretation to be wrong, and therefore any contrary interpretation cannot be correct. Hence, you’re behaving as if you think your interpretation is infallible, even if you don’t admit it.

Oh, and here’s one more infallible-sounding statement you made: “No one is infallible, Eric”.

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

No, I have not taken you out of context. This ongoing exchange between us stemmed from your presentation of John 6 as a demonstration of OSAS. It was all about what it means to believe in Jesus in order to be given to Jesus by the Father. So if you are saying that I “took you out of context” and that the context “had nothing to do with OSAS" then prove it by telling me what the context actually was and how my statement did not actually refute it.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

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

How is that funny? You presented John 6 which states that one must believe in Jesus to have eternal life (John 6:40), so obviously the question at hand is what does it mean to believe in Jesus? I’m still waiting for your answer.

The verse states it Eric.

No, it doesn’t. Based on what you said in your earlier post, you seem to be saying that once God chooses someone to be saved, that person automatically believes in Christ. If that is the case then you need to work that one out, because the concept of God forcing someone to believe is not found anywhere in Scripture, and is not found in the many verses I cited which detail what the Bible says it means to believe in Christ.

And if this is not what you are saying then you need to clarify your position regarding what it means to believe in Christ.

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

All the Scripture passages I cited above regarding belief in Christ admonish people to take certain actions and embrace certain aspects of the Faith. They are presented in the context of one being able to choose to do them or not to do them. Romans 10:9 is specifically presented as an “if…then” teaching.

In addition to such passages, I will add:

And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments” (Matthew 19:16-17, RSV).
Note that this is presented as another “if…then” proposition. So is this from 2Timothy:

The saying is sure: If we have died with him, we shall also live with him;
if we endure, we shall also reign with him;
if we deny him, he also will deny us (2Tim 2:11-12, RSV)

“I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live” (Deut 30:19, RSV, emphasis added)

In Genesis 2:16-17, God clearly expressed that it was his will that Adam and Eve should not eat the forbidden fruit. As we all know, in Genesis 3:6, Adam and Eve ate it anyway. How did they violate the will of God unless they had free will?

”Free will offerings” are mentioned in the Old Testament, such as in Lev. 22:18-23 and Ezra 3:4-5.
If God did not give humans free will then what exactly is a “free will offering” and how are humans able to make them?

When the righteous turns from his righteousness,
and commits iniquity, he shall die for it.
And when the wicked turns from his wickedness,
and does what is lawful and right, he shall live by it. (Ezekiel 33:18-19, RSV)

”He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life; I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels” (Rev 3:5, RSV)
If we are predestined, then why is there even a possibility of having our names blotted out of the book of life?

Blessed is the man who endures trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life which God has promised to those who love him (James 1:12, RSV)
If I am saved and “once saved, always saved”, then why do I need to endure trials?
If I do not have free will, then why is there a “test”? What purpose does a test serve to someone who is already predetermined to pass or fail?

Genesis 22: God put Abraham’s faith to the test when he required him to sacrifice Isaac.
If Abraham had no free will, what was the point of testing him to see whether or not he would go through with it?

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body (2Cor 5:10, RSV, emphasis added).

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done (Rev 20:12, RSV, emphasis added).

So according to Paul and Revelations, judgment is in accordance with our actions. Moreover, if we do not have free will, then why is there a judgment in the first place?

(Continued in my next post)