How to refute "eternal security" or "OSAS"

[William_C]

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

Your sig says you are a “grammar Nazi.”

If so, how can you ask that question?

 

[Farsight001]

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?

You’ve referred to Jesus’ words in scripture and presented the protestant interpretation (A tradition!) of those words. Eric’s words stand.

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.

Well, the clergy of the Catholic Church are apostles, through laying on of hands (which is definitely in scripture) and passing on of the authority through the generations. So you are right - your interpretation is not apostolic. The Church’s is, though. You accidentally proved Eric’s point here.

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

No it’s not. We’ve been trying to explain this to you and you ignore our explanations and repeat yourself like a broken record about it.

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

Gravity is a scientifc concept which actually was known, just not recognized as a scientific concept. OSAS is a belief pertaining to the faith that you claim is clearly laid out in scripture. Yet for the first 1500 years of the Church, you seem to suggest that no one actually noticed these “obvious” verses. Why is that? (since you never actually answered Eric’s question here, I’ve asked it as well)

This has nothing to do with contradiction, Eric. Jesus words are plain.

No. You THINK Jesus’ words are plain. Clearly, if we are having a discussion about it, they are not 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).

Maybe it can’t be lost. But one still has the free will to reject it or to walk away from it.

It’s very simple.

This is the essense of your problem. An omnipotent, omniscient being over 1500 years inspired over 40 different authors to write 73 texts laying out rules and regulations for every person who ever has, does, or will live to function by, and you think it’s “simple”. It is anything but.

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).

The answer is not in that passage. You have received multiple in depth explanations as to why your interpretation of that verse is wrong. You have yet to address or even acknowledge any of them.

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.

This is a non sequitor. It does not address what Eric said in any way.

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

Also a non sequitor. It would really help the discussion if you would learn how to actually address things that are said to you. Your perpetual non-answers are getting ridiculous.

 

[Farsight001]

Your sig says you are a “grammar Nazi.”

If so, how can you ask that question?

Just as I already did. Answer the question please. Avoiding my question to talk about my signature is just plain childish.

 

[William_C]

Just as I already did. Answer the question please. Avoiding my question to talk about my signature is just plain childish.

Friend, where in the passage does Jesus offer the caveat you assert?

 

[Farsight001]

Friend, where in the passage does Jesus offer the caveat you assert?

I didn’t offer a caveat. I offered a clarification in Jesus’ words. Now answer the question please. Or are you afraid to?

 

[Farsight001]

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

Grace saves. Grace allows us to exist. In that context, yes, you need grace. But the grace to simply believe there is a God? Well, grace is a gift. We all get it. It is our choice to accept or reject it, so it is still a matter of free will.

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).

Good think grace is a free gift, so it was already offered to them, and it is their choice to accept or reject it.

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

Our will is free to accept or reject the grace that allows us to believe, but we are all given it.

 

[William_C]

I didn’t offer a caveat. I offered a clarification in Jesus’ words. Now answer the question please. Or are you afraid to?

Friend, the caveat you offered was that of rejection of Christ.

So let me ask you again, where in John 10:28 does Jesus offer the caveat you offer?

You’ve yet to answer my question. Please do so.

 

[William_C]

Grace saves. Grace allows us to exist. In that context, yes, you need grace. But the grace to simply believe there is a God?

I said “believe IN God,” not believe there is a God. Are you sure you’re a grammar Nazi?

 

[Farsight001]

Friend, the caveat you offered was that of rejection of Christ.

So let me ask you again, where in John 10:28 does Jesus offer the caveat you offer?

You’ve yet to answer my question. Please do so.

I didn’t offer a caveat and I think you might want to look up the definition of the word. You are clearly not using it properly

In addition, I asked you the question first. You do not get to refuse to answer it while demanding I answer questions of yours. Do you understand the concept of conversational etiquette? The one who asks the question first (me) gets it answered first. Trying to game things and twist the question back on me is simply not going to work so stop trying.

 

[William_C]

You’ve referred to Jesus’ words in scripture and presented the protestant interpretation (A tradition!) of those words. Eric’s words stand.

I haven’t presented an interpretation, but simply pointed you, and Eric to the words of Jesus.

Farsight001:

Well, the clergy of the Catholic Church are apostles, through laying on of hands (which is definitely in scripture) and passing on of the authority through the generations. So you are right - your interpretation is not apostolic.

If I am right, then no one’s interpretation is apostolic on the basis of what I said, which is, ***“any interpretation that comes after the apostles writing of Scripture is, by definition, not apostolic because the interpretation is made by someone other than an apostle.” ***That means your church’s clergy as well. Are you sure you’re a grammar Nazi?

Farsight001:

No it’s not.

Yes it is.

Farsight001:

Gravity is a scientifc concept which actually was known, just not recognized as a scientific concept.

Gravity is said to have been DISCOVERED in 1650. Look it up.

Farsight001:

OSAS is a belief pertaining to the faith that you claim is clearly laid out in scripture. Yet for the first 1500 years of the Church, you seem to suggest that no one actually noticed these “obvious” verses. Why is that? (since you never actually answered Eric’s question here, I’ve asked it as well).

I’ve already answered that question.

Farsight001:

No. You THINK Jesus’ words are plain.

No. I KNOW they are.

Farsight001:

Clearly, if we are having a discussion about it, they are not plain.

You’re making it obvious they’re not plain to you, but that doesn’t mean they’re not plain to others.

Farsight001:

Maybe it can’t be lost. But one still has the free will to reject it or to walk away from it.

There’s no maybe about it. Salvation cannot be lost. That’s the good news of the Gospel. If salvation could be lost, the Gospel wouldn’t be good news.

Farsight001:

This is the essense of your problem. An omnipotent, omniscient being over 1500 years inspired over 40 different authors to write 73 texts laying out rules and regulations for every person who ever has, does, or will live to function by, and you think it’s “simple”. It is anything but.

It’s very simple.

Farsight001:

The answer is not in that passage.

Yes it is. As I pointed out.

Farsight001:

You have received multiple in depth explanations as to why your interpretation of that verse is wrong. You have yet to address or even acknowledge any of them.

I’ve addressed them all by saying that words of Jesus in Jn 6:39, and 10:28 destroy them. Remember?

Farsight001:

This is a non sequitor. It does not address what Eric said in any way.

It is not a non sequitur, and it addresses the question asked by Eric.
-Farsight001:

Also a non sequitor.

No, it’s not a non sequitur, but a statement of truth supported by scripture.

Farsight001:

It would really help the discussion if you would learn how to actually address things that are said to you. Your perpetual non-answers are getting ridiculous.

So is your bitterness, and anger. They are not fruit of the Spirit (cf Gal 5:22-23).

 

[Farsight001]

I said “believe IN God,” not believe there is a God. Are you sure you’re a grammar Nazi?

I know you said YOU believe in God. I wasn’t talking about you, which I think is rather obvious from what I said. Now please address what I wrote instead of trying to belittle my person.

 

[William_C]

I didn’t offer a caveat and I think you might want to look up the definition of the word. You are clearly not using it properly

In addition, I asked you the question first. You do not get to refuse to answer it while demanding I answer questions of yours. Do you understand the concept of conversational etiquette? The one who asks the question first (me) gets it answered first. Trying to game things and twist the question back on me is simply not going to work so stop trying.

Where is the caveat you offered, offered by Jesus.

Jesus nowhere says that salvation can be lost. Nowhere.

 

[William_C]

I know you said YOU believe in God. I wasn’t talking about you, which I think is rather obvious from what I said. Now please address what I wrote instead of trying to belittle my person.

I have. I corrected you’re error in understanding the grammar. Doing that renders your question, meaningless; your question becomes a non sequitur.

 

[mab23]

I said “believe IN God,” not believe there is a God. Are you sure you’re a grammar Nazi?

I see you diverting the questions rather than answering them

the Claim for OSAS is clearly refuted

what would the bible actually have to say for you to believe that OSAS is just simply not true?

and does it bother you that your belief of OSAS was not believed in for 1500 years

and the year 363 is when the bible was composed so for almost 400 years there was no canonized bible like we have today and its pretty clear from the writings of the early church fathers that they believed in the same doctrine that the Catholic church follows today - which is more than clear in the archaeological/ historical evidence -

so before the bible and even after the bible was put together for 1500 years - Christians didn’t believe in OSAS…

 

[William_C]

I see you diverting the questions rather than answering them

I see me answering them.

mab23:

the Claim for OSAS is clearly refuted

The claims against OSAS are destroyed by Jesus’ statements in Jn 6:39 and 10:28.

mab23:

what would the bible actually have to say for you to believe that OSAS is just simply not true?

A moot question as the Bible clearly teaches salvation can’t be lost.

mab23:

and does it bother you that your belief of OSAS was not believed in for 1500 years

Already answered.

mab23:

and the year 363 is when the bible was composed so for almost 400 years there was no canonized bible like we have today and its pretty clear from the writings of the early church fathers that the believe in the same doctrine that the Catholic church follows today - which is more than clear in the archaeological/ historical evidence

A non sequitur.

 

[mab23]

I see me answering them.

The claims against OSAS are destroyed by Jesus’ statements in Jn 6:39 and 10:28.

A moot question as the Bible clearly teaches salvation can’t be lost.

Already answered.

A non sequitur.

its not a non sequitor… lulz

your just taking out verses of the bible to support theories, its clearly out of context and you have to look at how it is reconciled with the whole bible

**
If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.
Saint Augustine**

 

[William_C]

its not a non sequitor… lulz

It certainly is…lulz, lulz

mab23:

your just taking out verses of the bible to support theories, its clearly out of context and you have to look at how it is reconciled with the whole bible

You’re projecting.

 

[mab23]

.

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

.

This does not answer the question of OSAS not believed in the first 1500 years - its a diversion by talking about Gravity … which has nothing to do with the question at hand

it is clear the the succesor of John - St Ignatius - you can check his writings - never once mentions OSAS - you my friend are a victim of false teachings

8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel [d]contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be [e]accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel [f]contrary to what you received, he is to be [g]accursed!

Galations 1:8-9

you are practicing a gospel that was not taught or preached for 1500 years - until people decided to interpret the bible for themselves

as attractive as OSAS sounds its just not true - I can see how alluring it can be - then you are no longer truly responsible for your actions - because you were once saved ,and always saved…

it doesn’t pan up

 

[Farsight001]

Where is the caveat you offered, offered by Jesus.

Jesus nowhere says that salvation can be lost. Nowhere.

I never said salvation can be lost either. Try reading what I wrote and responding to my questions.

 

[Farsight001]

I have. I corrected you’re error in understanding the grammar. Doing that renders your question, meaningless; your question becomes a non sequitur.

There was no error in my grammar. I said “a God” for a reason. Your ego decided, falsely, that I was talking about you, and so you tried to correct my grammar. But since I wasn’t talking about you, there was nothing to correct. Now answer the question.