How to refute "eternal security" or "OSAS"

[William_C]

Cut the silly avoidance of the issue. He provided a lengthy reply to your assertion, arguing, in depth, why he believed your interpretation was wrong. A proper response is to address every point he made, individually, and in detail yourself, explaining, with logic, reason, and an argument, why you believe his interpretation of wrong. All you’ve done is vainly repeat your assertion and provide no argument. No one is going to simply blindly believe you like this. Frankly, and I don’t mean this as an insult, but it makes you look ignorant and cowardly and definitely insincere.

I understand, and I also wish you well in your quest not to lose your salvation.

 

[EricFilmer]

Philthy, thank you for all of the work you’ve put into your response, however, 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. Jesus says those given to Him by the Father will never perish; therefore, salvation cannot be lost (cf Jn 6:39). That’s good news.

William, out of curiosity, can you quote one Christian writing prior to the Reformation who interpreted these passages in the OSAS manner that you did?

 

[William_C]

William, out of curiosity, can you quote one Christian writing prior to the Reformation who interpreted these passages in the OSAS manner that you did?

To appeal to history, and to your tradition is a fallacy.

Christ’s words speak for themselves, and His statements are absolute.

Do you believe that Jesus will fail to do the will of the Father which He says He’ll do in John 6:39?

Also, will you please explain to me how “shall never perish,” means something other than "shall never perish?"

 

[pete_29]

To appeal to history, and to your tradition is a fallacy.

Christ’s words speak for themselves, and His statements are absolute.

Do you believe that Jesus will fail to do the will of the Father which He says He’ll do in John 6:39?

Also, will you please explain to me how **“shall never perish,” **means something other than “shall never perish?”

How do you know if you were saved in the first place? How can you be saved before your earthly trial is over?

 

[Farsight001]

I understand, and I also wish you well in your quest not to lose your salvation.

You clearly don’t understand, or you’d actually provide a response with some meat to it. You should know that failure to provide responses of substance indicates to the administration here that you are just here to proselytize, which is against the forum rules and will get your account blocked quickly.

 

[Farsight001]

Also, will you please explain to me how **“shall never perish,” **means something other than “shall never perish?”

Context, something crucial to understanding, but which you consistently exclude and ignore when it is provided for you, makes it clear that it does not mean what you claim it means.

 

[Philthy]

Philthy, thank you for all of the work you’ve put into your response, however, 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. Jesus says those given to Him by the Father will never perish; therefore, salvation cannot be lost (cf Jn 6:39). That’s good news.

God bless, and thank you for offering what you have. I wish you well in your quest not to lose your salvation.

Take care.

Hi William -

It appears I am a prophet! You did exactly as predicted - avoidance not only of the verses you brought into discussion, but those that directly contradict them. Thank you for remaining civil in what little dialogue you did provide, and thank you for aptly demonstrating to those interested in this issue just how little those who proclaim OSAS are prepared to defend the doctrine from the full force of Scripture.
I thank you for wishing me well in my quest as it is a quest that leads me more fully into being conformed to the image and likeness of God.

Blessings William “No-Tell”!

 

[William_C]

Context, something crucial to understanding, but which you consistently exclude and ignore when it is provided for you, makes it clear that it does not mean what you claim it means.

You seem to have misunderstood my two questions because your response has nothing to do with either one.

 

[William_C]

How do you know if you were saved in the first place? How can you be saved before your earthly trial is over?

Read 1 John. He gives a number of “tests,” and in fact, concludes his epistle with the statement that he wrote the epistle that one could know he had eternal life, isn’t that correct?

 

[William_C]

Hi William -

It appears I am a prophet! You did exactly as predicted - avoidance not only of the verses you brought into discussion, but those that directly contradict them. Thank you for remaining civil in what little dialogue you did provide, and thank you for aptly demonstrating to those interested in this issue just how little those who proclaim OSAS are prepared to defend the doctrine from the full force of Scripture.
I thank you for wishing me well in my quest as it is a quest that leads me more fully into being conformed to the image and likeness of God.

Blessings William “No-Tell”!

You’re welcome, Philty.

 

[Philthy]

Read 1 John. He gives a number of “tests,” and in fact, concludes his epistle with the statement that he wrote the epistle that one could know he had eternal life, isn’t that correct?

Having eternal life isn’t the only goal William - having it for eternity is, and they are different.

 

[Credo_in_Deum]

If I beleive in the OSAS doctrine then I believe I do not have free will; I mean how could I still have free will if I don’t even have the ability to reject my own salvation?

 

[Farsight001]

You seem to have misunderstood my two questions because your response has nothing to do with either one.

It has everything to do with your questions because your argument is based on a verse taken out of context. You provided no context. It is, by definition, out of context, and so comprehension of the verse is lacking. Another user provided context, explained it in detail, and clarified things quite well. You failed to address this in depth explanation that shows quite clearly that you interpretation of the out-of-context verse you provided was lacking, and all you’re doing is repeating your claim like a pull string doll.

 

[EricFilmer]

To appeal to history, and to your tradition is a fallacy.

And yet you are obviously appealing to the history and tradition of certain Protestant Reformers (even though you haven’t specifically mentioned them), so why the double standard?

Moreover, if no Christian writer interpreted John 6:39 in the OSAS manner that you did (prior to the Reformation), it demonstrates that your interpretation is, by definition, not apostolic, and therefore a tradition of men.

And you say that appealing to history is a “fallacy”, so exactly why is that so? A fallacy means not having a rational line of thinking. To this I will point out that OSAS has not been taught within the 2000 year history of not only the Catholic Church, but also never taught by any of the various Eastern Orthodox Churches, nor any of the various Oriental Orthodox Churches. Therefore, for the first 1500 years of the Church the OSAS doctrine was unknown. Why is this? According to the Catholic and Orthodox explanation, it was not taught because it was not apostolic. And, might I add, as a former Anglican let me point out that it was never embraced by a number of Protestant denominations, either.

But according to your theory (or at least what you imply), the reason that it was never taught is that, despite being what you consider the plain words of Scripture, no one among the literally billions of Christians spotted it for 1500 years until some (but not all) of the Reformers pointed it out.

So kindly explain to me why my position is a “fallacy” while yours constitutes a rational deduction.

Christ’s words speak for themselves, and His statements are absolute.

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. 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.

And, if not, then explain why, when people show scriptural interpretations which contradict yours, you automatically dismiss them as being false while declaring that yours represents the “words of Christ speaking for themselves” and therefore your interpretation is the one that is “absolute.”

Do you believe that Jesus will fail to do the will of the Father which He says He’ll do in John 6:39?

No, but what Jesus actually says from John 6 is:
[38] For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me;
[39] and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day.
[40] For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

So the question at hand is what does it mean to believe in Jesus in order to be “given to him” by the Father? I’ll say more on this in a moment…

Also, will you please explain to me how **“shall never perish,” **means something other than “shall never perish?”

It means those that believe in Jesus shall never perish. But, once again, the question it hand is what does it mean to believe in Jesus. Jesus said that those who believe in him will do the works that he did. He also spoke of a number of things which count as acceptance of him, such as charity to those in need and consuming the Eucharist (which is the whole context of John 6). Therefore, it is possible to do these things at one point, but then stop doing them later, and therefore (at such a later point) be seen as a rejection of Jesus and a cessation of a proper belief in him.

But your interpretation states that once someone believes in Jesus, his decision is somehow frozen in time. John 6:39 does not say that.

 

[William_C]

Hi William…With respect to the verse above from John’s Gospel where does it say that all those who are saved at one point during their earthly lives will go to Heaven? I don’t see it.

Philthy, if you read the verse again, you’ll see that it Jesus who gives eternal life, and about those to whom He gives eternal life, Jesus says they will never perish. It’s right there in the verse.

 

[William_C]

And yet you are obviously appealing to the history and tradition of certain Protestant Reformers (even though you haven’t specifically mentioned them), so why the double standard?

Eric, if you look again, you’ll see that I’ve referred you to the words of Jesus recorded in Scripture. Is it your position that Jesus is one of the Protestant Reformers?
EricFulmer:

Moreover, if no Christian writer interpreted John 6:39 in the OSAS manner that you did (prior to the Reformation), it demonstrates that your interpretation is, by definition, not apostolic, and therefore a tradition of men.

It demonstrates no such thing Eric. The apostles didn’t interpret what they wrote, they simply wrote it. Any interpretation that comes after their writing of Scripture is, by definition, not apostolic because the interpretation is made by someone other than an apostle.
EricFulmer:

And you say that appealing to history is a “fallacy”, so exactly why is that so? A fallacy means not having a rational line of thinking. To this I will point out that OSAS has not been taught within the 2000 year history of not only the Catholic Church, but also never taught by any of the various Eastern Orthodox Churches, nor any of the various Oriental Orthodox Churches.

And yet, in the Scripture, in the writings of the apostles, it is clearly asserted.
EricFulmer:

Therefore, for the first 1500 years of the Church the OSAS doctrine was unknown. Why is this?

For the first 1650 years of the church, gravity remained unknown, and yet, it was there all the time.
EricFulmer:

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. 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.

And, if not, then explain why, when people show scriptural interpretations which contradict yours, you automatically dismiss them as being false while declaring that yours represents the “words of Christ speaking for themselves” and therefore your interpretation is the one that is “absolute.”

This has nothing to do with contradiction, Eric. Jesus words are plain. Any verses offered as “proof” that salvation can be lost are destroyed by the words of Christ in Jn 10:28, and they are further destroyed by Jesus claim that He has come to the will of the Father, and the will of the Father is that Jesus lose none given to Him, but raise them up at the last day (Jn :39). It’s very simple.
EricFulmer:

No, but what Jesus actually says from John 6 is:
[38] For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me;
[39] and this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day.
[40] For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."

So the question at hand is what does it mean to believe in Jesus in order to be “given to him” by the Father? I’ll say more on this in a moment…

The answer to that is in the passage, Eric. It means the Father chooses who He will save, and gives those to the Son to raise up on the last day. It’s clear that one cannot come to Christ on His own. One cannot believe, unless the Father “drags” him to Christ (v 44).
EricFulmer:

It means those that believe in Jesus shall never perish.

I agree with you, Eric, that’s what it means.
EricFulmer:

But, once again, the question it hand is what does it mean to believe in Jesus.

Eric, from the verse, John 10:28, it is reasonable to conclude that those who will never perish will believe in Jesus in the correct way. After all, they will never perish.
EricFulmer:

But your interpretation states that once someone believes in Jesus, his decision is somehow frozen in time. John 6:39 does not say that.

The truth of it is, Eric, the decisions regarding that are made in eternity (cf Eph 1:3-6).

 

[William_C]

If I beleive in the OSAS doctrine then I believe I do not have free will; I mean how could I still have free will if I don’t even have the ability to reject my own salvation?

You don’t have a free will to believe in God, but you need grace.

If your will were free to believe, it would need no help at all. That’s pretty much what Pelagian taught, right?

 

[Farsight001]

You don’t have a free will to believe in God, but you need grace.

If your will were free to believe, it would need no help at all. That’s pretty much what Pelagian taught, right?

You don’t have a free will to believe in God? So atheists cannot believe in God, no matter how hard they try? This flies in the face of free will.

 

[Farsight001]

Philthy, if you read the verse again, you’ll see that it Jesus who gives eternal life, and about those to whom He gives eternal life, Jesus says they will never perish. It’s right there in the verse.

And what if those people give it back or reject it? Do they still have eternal life, even though they tried to reject it?

 

[William_C]

You don’t have a free will to believe in God?

No. You need grace to believe in God, isn’t that correct?

Farsight001:

So atheists cannot believe in God, no matter how hard they try?

Not without grace. If they were free to believe, they wouldn’t need grace, but they would believe without it. But it’s impossible to believe without grace (cf John 6:44).

Farsight001:

This flies in the face of free will.

If your will is free to believe, then why do you need the help of grace to believe?