How to refute "eternal security" or "OSAS"

[EricFilmer]

I’m not revising anything, Eric.

Then you’re just making your end of this debate even more difficult than it already is.

They weren’t meant to, Eric, but were meant to show the disconnect in the thinking of Catholics who oppose OSAS.

This is no disconnect. If you continue to state otherwise then you need to demonstrate such a disconnect with quotations from what I have posted and quotations from Tim Staples’ article or a Catholic magisterial document. For someone participating on a debate forum you certainly seem to have some strange notions as to what constitutes a proper rebuttal. For the record, your unsubstantiated opinion is not a proper rebuttal.

I’m saying that you are required to accept the consequences of the logical conclusion of Catholic predestination to salvation; namely, it’s identical to OSAS.

Are you suggesting that the OSAS doctrine that your been supporting in this thread is “identical” to the Catholic one I presented in Post #156? If so then explain your denial of free will.

That’s because in Catholic predestination to salvation, salvation cannot be lost.

In Catholic predestination to salvation, salvation cannot be lost. That’s OSAS.

Therefore, Catholic predestination demands acceptance of OSAS.

Then it’s certainly funny how every Catholic Catechism ever made for the past two millennia has managed to forget to put that OSAS doctrine in there! Do they speak of predestination? Yes. But do they speak about “once saved, always saved”? No!

And it is also funny how over the course of six years while studying for a M.Div and a M.A. in Systematic Theology in a Catholic institution run by Benedictine monks that I was taught that OSAS was a false doctrine.

Once again, the issue at hand is free will which is something that you reject. There is no Catholic definition of predestination which denies that humans have the free will to participate or not participate in God’s plan of salvation. If you continue to state otherwise then back it up with proper documentation from an official Catholic source. Your unsubstantiated and misinformed opinion concerning Catholic teaching does nothing to advance your position in this thread!

 

[William_C]

Is saved, William? Where did I or anyone suggest that?

You do, in your post #38:

"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”.

Philthy:

Paul clearly believes that they were saved at one point in time –

That’s twice you’ve said it.

Philthy:

Unless, of course, you believe that Christ set the non-saved free? Is that what you’re prepared to say??

Here’s the direct quote of what I said, Philthy, to refresh your memory: “Just because Paul uses “US” to describe his audience doesn’t mean everyone in his audience is saved. That’s absurd.”

Philthy:

Your attempt at a refutation - is, of course, is a projection of your own notion of what being saved is. Paul’s is quite different apparently. You would say that it’s impossible for Paul to know, but Paul seems to use a different standard - perhaps Baptism, for example - as the defining standard as to whether they “were” saved. But ultimately it is irrelevant to the topic at hand: Paul identifies the “us” as being those whom Christ has freed from slavery. In your theology those are all members of the elect, those predestined to salvation and all his comments regarding that “us” is what follows. It doesn’t matter at all whether some of the audience is not saved - what matters is that Paul is directing his comments to those who “for freedom Christ has set…free”, and it is those who Paul is addressing. So please deal with the actual issues and not your attempts at diversion.

I’ve already dealt with all you say in my post 125, I suggest you go read it again.

Paul’s admonitions have no application to those have been given eternal life by Jesus, and that is because Jesus tells us that those to whom He gives eternal life shall never perish.

Your difficulty is that you believe that sinning causes one to lose salvation, but that isn’t so. Look at David’s sin. Do you believe David lost his salvation? How about Moses? Moses was not allowed to enter the promise land, and his life taken for breaking faith with God. Do you believe Moses lost his salvation?

So if one becomes entangled again with a yoke of bondage, and never repents, he proves that he never stood in the liberty by which Christ made those who believe free (Gal 5:1).

Philthy:

And while your at it, would you please tell us exactly what Christ meant by “My sheep” in John 10-28 and what he meant - exactly- by “My sheep hear my voice”. You started this entire discussion with the claim that clearly establishes OSAS. It’s well past time for you to tell us what those parts of that verse mean and to tell whether or not you are fallible in your interpretation of that verse.

The sheep are the elect who hear Christ’s voice and follow His commands.

 

[William_C]

Then you’re just making your end of this debate even more difficult than it already is.

No I’m not.
EF:

This is no disconnect. If you continue to state otherwise then you need to demonstrate such a disconnect with quotations from what I have posted and quotations from Tim Staples’ article or a Catholic magisterial document. For someone participating on a debate forum you certainly seem to have some strange notions as to what constitutes a proper rebuttal. For the record, your unsubstantiated opinion is not a proper rebuttal.

I’m not engaged in a debate, but a conversation.

Furthermore, I’m not having a conversation with Tim Staples, but with you, and I’m pointing out to you the logical conclusion of Catholic predestination to salvation; namely, it’s identical to OSAS. That’s because in Catholic predestination to salvation, salvation cannot be lost.
EF:

Are you suggesting that the OSAS doctrine that your been supporting in this thread is “identical” to the Catholic one I presented in Post #156? If so then explain your denial of free will.

What I am asserting Eric is the logical conclusion of Catholic predestination to salvation; namely, it’s identical to OSAS. That’s because in Catholic predestination to salvation, salvation cannot be lost.
EF:

Then it’s certainly funny how every Catholic Catechism ever made for the past two millennia has managed to forget to put that OSAS doctrine in there! Do they speak of predestination? Yes. But do they speak about “once saved, always saved”? No!

You don’t understand, Eric, I’m not claiming you were taught it, and believe it as a doctrine. I’m claiming you ought to be taught to believe it as a doctrine because it’s the logical conclusion of any Predestination to salvation doctrine.

You’re trying to squirm out from under the logical consequences of your predestination doctrine by saying that if the church hasn’t taught you to believe the doctrine of OSAS, then the church’s teaching is fixed in stone, and the rules, and laws of logic be damned. That’s absurd.
EF:

And it is also funny how over the course of six years while studying for a M.Div and a M.A. in Systematic Theology in a Catholic institution run by Benedictine monks that I was taught that OSAS was a false doctrine.

(I think you mean OSAS IS a false doctrine)

You prove my point, Eric. I believe you were taught OSAS is a false doctrine. That’s fine. But the logical conclusion of Catholic predestination to salvation is that it’s identical to OSAS. That’s because in Catholic predestination to salvation, salvation cannot be lost.

Therefore, you should be taught that OSAS true, and not to be taught that it is, is a disconnect in Catholic teaching.
EF:

Once again, the issue at hand is free will which is something that you reject.

There is no Catholic definition of predestination which denies that humans have the free will to participate or not participate in God’s plan of salvation.

That’s absurd. The Catholic statement of predestination states that God **“has predestined some to eternal blessedness.”

Not the possiblity of, not the potential of, but the certainty and reality of eternal blessedness. **

Are you denying that is the statement of Catholic Predestination?
EF:

If you continue to state otherwise then back it up with proper documentation from an official Catholic source. Your unsubstantiated and misinformed opinion concerning Catholic teaching does nothing to advance your position in this thread!

You’ll find it in Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

 

[kempo1]

I have a question about the OSAS debate. When was this doctrine actually started and first taught? I read that it was started around right after the reformation. If this is truth then none of the first 1500 years of church history taught this doctrine. So then it would seem like a definite man made doctrine. So feel free to comment on either side. Thanks!!

 

[kempo1]

One more thing, the free will issue. According to all i have read on this thread posted by william, a person ,according to his belief, would be sinless. According to his belief, there is no need for repentance of sin. GOD controls your every move like a puppet master and you are not actually making your day to day decisions. His belief of no free will totally destroys good and evil which is in scripture. I just do not understand how he as well as others can actually believe these ideas. I think Catholics have more than proved on this thread how this is a false doctrine. God Bless!!!

 

[William_C]

One more thing, the free will issue. According to all i have read on this thread posted by william, a person ,according to his belief, would be sinless. According to his belief, there is no need for repentance of sin.

That’s an assertion.

Here’s my reponse of equal thoughtfulness: You’re wrong.

kempo1:

God controls your every move like a puppet master and you are not actually making your day to day decisions.

Another response of equal thoughtfulness: No God doesn’t do that, and show me where I’ve made a statement that He does?

kempo1:

His belief of no free will totally destroys good and evil which is in scripture.

That’s a straw man.

I believe that man is a volitional being, one who has a will. I also believe scripture when it asserts that man** IS A SLAVE,** either to sin, or to God (cf Jn 8:34; Rom 6:16-22); therefore, my position is very much aware of good and evil.

Furthermore, Scripture supports my position. It does not support your secular belief that men have a free will, and that men are able to choose to do either good, or evil. Which is why men need grace.

kempo1:

I just do not understand how he as well as others can actually believe these ideas.

You’re Catholic. You’re catechised and ECFized. I’m not.

kempo1:

I think Catholics have more than proved on this thread how this is a false doctrine. God Bless!!!

Well of course you do. You’re a Catholic. I would expect you to have no other opinion than the one you’ve expressed.

So what?

 

[kempo1]

So william, on one hand you say we have will, but then you say we dont have free will. Can you explain? You are very quick to comment very rude to me and others on these topics. I was merely trying to understad your position while stating mine. But thats ok, you can respond how you want BECAUSE YOU HAVE FREE WILL!!!

 

[kempo1]

Oh and what about the question of when was Osas doctrine first taught? Would like to hear your thoughts.

 

[William_C]

So william, on one hand you say we have will, but then you say we dont have free will. Can you explain? You are very quick to comment very rude to me and others on these topics. I was merely trying to understad your position while stating mine. But thats ok, you can respond how you want BECAUSE YOU HAVE FREE WILL!!!

I’m not being rude to you. Maybe you’re overly sensitive.

Here’s is what I said: man is a volitional creature. That means he makes decisions.

However, Scripture nowhere says that man’s will is free. To the contrary, man’s will is said to be a slave, either to sin, or to God (righteousness) I referred you to some scriptures.

Scripture saying man is a slave negates the idea that man is free. Like it or not. At least, if you want to occupy a scriptural position.

 

[William_C]

Oh and what about the question of when was Osas doctrine first taught? Would like to hear your thoughts.

By the apostles, in scripture. That’s where it comes from.

 

[Philthy]

You do, in your post #38: "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”.

That’s twice you’ve said it.

Here’s the direct quote of what I said, Philthy, to refresh your memory: “Just because Paul uses “US” to describe his audience doesn’t mean everyone in his audience is saved. That’s absurd.”

I will reiterate my point: Paul’s comments are directed towards those who* have been* set free by Christ. Everything he says pertains to those who have been set free by Christ - including the “fall from grace” and “separated from Christ”. Your objection remains irrelevant although I apologize for some sloppy wording when I said “They are “saved” Christians” - I should have just left it as they “were” saved. It would have been more accurate to simply leave it as: "Note that Paul uses US to describe his audience: those who have been “set…free” by Christ. Nonetheless, **it is an irrelevant distinction: his comments are directed towards those who have been saved; and despite having been saved he warns them of falling from grace and being separated from Christ. **

I’ve already dealt with all you say in my post 125, I suggest you go read it again.

I don’t think that you have, but I’ll check again…

Paul’s admonitions have no application to those have been given eternal life by Jesus, and that is because Jesus tells us that those to whom He gives eternal life shall never perish.

This is not stated in Scripture and directly contradicts the fact that his comments are directed towards those who have been saved - those who have been set free for freedom by Christ. For you to suggest something as ridiculous as Paul was writing comments addressed to the Church but which “have no application” to them is simply another desperate attempt to avoid the obvious. He addresses them as members of the body of Christ in a variety of terms:

Gal 1:3-4 “grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4[* (http://www.usccb.org/bible/galatians/1#56001004-1) who gave himself for our sins that he might rescue us from the present evil age in accord with the will of our God and Father,” Christ gave himself for them
Gal1:6 "I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you[* (http://www.usccb.org/bible/galatians/1#56001006-2) by grace " they were called by grace

Gal 3:2
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? They received the Spirit through faith in believing the gospel - which proves that they responded to the above call

Gal 3:26
For through faith you are all children of Godin Christ Jesus. They are children of God through Christ - you might call them “saved”…

Gal 4:6 As proof that you are children,[* (http://www.usccb.org/bible/galatians/4#56004006-1) God sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” They are adopted children of God, and the proof is the spirit of Christ in their hearts.

Do I really need to go on proving that Paul was writing to people that he considered to have been saved? It is abundantly clear, William. Can you not see how ridiculous it is to suggest otherwise? Why do you resist Scripture so vehemently in this regard? Is it only to save the preconceived notion of OSAS? I think it is…

Your difficulty is that you believe that sinning causes one to lose salvation, but that isn’t so. Look at David’s sin. Do you believe David lost his salvation? How about Moses? Moses was not allowed to enter the promise land, and his life taken for breaking faith with God. Do you believe Moses lost his salvation?

Sorry buddy, but we’re not discussing your lame and inaccurate attempts at expressing what you THINK I believe. Stay focused on the topic - it alone is far too much for you to handle than to wander off.

The sheep are the elect who hear Christ’s voice and follow His commands.

I’ll ask you - 3rd time - again - for clarification -

• **what EXACTLY do you mean by “hear Christ’s voice”? Do you mean with their ears? Yes or No. **
• And** by “Christ’s voice” do you mean the sound which emanates from his mouth? Yes or No?**

It’s time to lay your hand on the table: you’re basing your entire entire theology on this verse - you should be able to clearly and succinctly provide a cogent and defensible reason for your interpretation. Hint: simply restating it as dogma when, in fact, it is nothing more than your opinion is not cogent nor is it defensible - it’s absurd.

• what exactly is your interpretation of these elements of the verse
• how, exactly, did you arrive at them;
• and are you infallible?

blessings

 

[EricFilmer]

Furthermore, I’m not having a conversation with Tim Staples, but with you, and I’m pointing out to you the logical conclusion of Catholic predestination to salvation; namely, it’s identical to OSAS. That’s because in Catholic predestination to salvation, salvation cannot be lost.

What I am asserting Eric is the logical conclusion of Catholic predestination to salvation; namely, it’s identical to OSAS. That’s because in Catholic predestination to salvation, salvation cannot be lost.

You don’t understand, Eric, I’m not claiming you were taught it, and believe it as a doctrine. I’m claiming you ought to be taught to believe it as a doctrine because it’s the logical conclusion of any Predestination to salvation doctrine.

You’re trying to squirm out from under the logical consequences of your predestination doctrine by saying that if the church hasn’t taught you to believe the doctrine of OSAS, then the church’s teaching is fixed in stone, and the rules, and laws of logic be damned. That’s absurd.

(I think you mean OSAS IS a false doctrine)

You prove my point, Eric. I believe you were taught OSAS is a false doctrine. That’s fine. But the logical conclusion of Catholic predestination to salvation is that it’s identical to OSAS. That’s because in Catholic predestination to salvation, salvation cannot be lost.

Therefore, you should be taught that OSAS true, and not to be taught that it is, is a disconnect in Catholic teaching.

That’s absurd. The Catholic statement of predestination states that God **“has predestined some to eternal blessedness.”

Not the possiblity of, not the potential of, but the certainty and reality of eternal blessedness. **

Are you denying that is the statement of Catholic Predestination?

You’ll find it in Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma.

This aspect of the discussion is going off-topic. The focus of this thread is to examine the biblical merits of OSAS (or lack thereof). Because the OP concerns how to refute OSAS to a Protestant who believes in Sola Scriptura, the Catholic definition of predestination (and whether or not it logically supports OSAS) really has no bearing.

In light of this, I have started a new thread to respond to the above statements from Willaim C: Do Catholic Teachings On Predestination Logically Conclude with OSAS?

I invite William C (and anyone else who is interested) to continue this aspect of the predestination discussion.

 

[kempo1]

I’m not being rude to you. Maybe you’re overly sensitive.

Here’s is what I said: man is a volitional creature. That means he makes decisions.

However, Scripture nowhere says that man’s will is free. To the contrary, man’s will is said to be a slave, either to sin, or to God (righteousness) I referred you to some scriptures.

Scripture saying man is a slave negates the idea that man is free. Like it or not. At least, if you want to occupy a scriptural position.

I uderstand it says to be a slave either way, but you have to accept or reject Christ which is your free choice. You are in no way forced into Christ. You are called and at that point you will choose to accept or reject. Not so hard to understand if you consider all scripture.

 

[kempo1]

By the apostles, in scripture. That’s where it comes from.

Oh and by the way i am not overly sensitive. I think the other Catholics here would agree you are somewhat rude at times. But its ok like i said its your FREE WILL TO DO SO. Anyway, i never seen aywhere where scripture speaks of osas. So you have not produced any to us stating this doctrine. Have to go,may be back tomorow to discuss. Peace be with your spirit.

 

[William_C]

I will reiterate my point: Paul’s comments are directed towards those who have been set free by Christ. Everything he says pertains to those who have been set free by Christ - including the “fall from grace” and “separated from Christ”.

Philthy, Paul has accused no one of those he is addressing of falling from grace, and being separated from grace.

The warning is addressed to those gentiles circumcised for the purpose of being saved instead of relying on Christ alone: *You become estranged from Christ YOU WHO ATTEMPT TO BE JUSTIFIED BY LAW.” *

Paul goes on to say that circumcision, by itself, is no big deal. You want to be circumcised? Go ahead. Just don’t do it to be saved, because if you do, you aren’t saved by grace.

So Philthy, if you had been one of those who professed faith in Christ, and got circumcised for your salvation, are you doomed to eternal damnation when you hear what Paul said? Is there no recourse?

Of course there is, repentance and confession of sin to God.

And being that Christ is the great high priest who always lives to intercede for His sheep who will never perish (Jn 10:28; Heb 7:25), if you are a sheep, you do just that. If you aren’t a sheep, you won’t.

Philthy:

This is not stated in Scripture and directly contradicts the fact that his comments are directed towards those who have been saved - those who have been set free for freedom by Christ.

It certainly is stated in Scripture Philthy. Christ’s job is to save His sheep. You might not believe that, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true. I’ve cited many verses for you to that effect.

Philthy:

Gal 1:3-4 “grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4* who gave himself for our sins that he might rescue us from the present evil age in accord with the will of our God and Father,” Christ gave himself for them
Gal1:6 "I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you* by grace " they were called by grace

How many of them are doing that, Philthy? All of the church? Half of the church?

You know it’s possible that none of the members of the true church at Galatia were doing that at all, but only those tares posing as believers in the church. You do realize that’s a possibility, don’t you?

You know, Paul is addressing BEHAVIOR, first and foremost. He has no idea who in the Galatian church is really saved, but treats all of them as though they are.

And again, because it is the job of Jesus to save His sheep, they will always repent of their sin because as Jesus says in Jn 10:28, “they shall never perish.”

Philthy:

Sorry buddy, but we’re not discussing your lame and innaccurate attempts at expressing what you THINK I believe. Stay focused on the topic - it alone is far too much for you to handle than to wander off.

You’re avoiding the tough questions, Philthy.

Let me answer the question for you: No, Moses didn’t lose his salvation because he is among those chosen by God for salvation, as is Christ’s true church, His sheep (cf Jn 10:27-28; Eph 1:3ff; 13-14; Eph 2:8ff).

Philthy:

what EXACTLY do you mean by “hear Christ’s voice”? Do you mean with their ears? Yes or No.

Well certainly those who heard him in person did, but others hear it through evangelization (Rom 10:14-17), and after salvation, through the Scriptures, Philthy which are living and breathing (Heb 4:12ff).

Philthy:

And by “Christ’s voice” do you mean the sound which emanates from his mouth? Yes or No?

See above.

Philthy:

what exactly is your interpretation of these elements of the verse

See above

Philthy:

how, exactly, did you arrive at them

By grace.

Philthy:

and are you infallible?

I am as infallible as Eric Filmer.

 

[Bballer32]

First of all, the concept of OSAS is impossible because no where in the bible does it say “will be saved” in that context but rather it says “might” or “some” indicating that not everyone is saved.

Catholics believe in predestination, which is that we are all predestined to be with Jesus. Calvin believed in pre-predestination, which is that you’re already judged by the time you are born and cannot change it. Well, this takes away the whole purpose of sin and the Crucifixion because there would be no need to be freed from sin if we are predestined from birth.

Now, to answer your question. Yes, you can fall away from the state of grace. “Of forgiveness be not overconfident, adding sin upon sin. Say not:‘Great is his mercy; my many sins he will forgive.’ For mercy and anger alike are with him; upon the wicked alights his wrath.” (Sirach 5: 5-7) In this passage, one can relate to many OSAS believers because many of them have sinned mortally and have not gotten it removed, but still continue to proclaim salvation. Sirach reminds us that in order for us to stay with salvation, we must ask of forgiveness through confession, try to sin no more, and realize that our paths can change to matter what.

Don’t confuse God’s Mercy with His Justice.

Another quote to use for non-Catholics (Sirach isn’t in the Protestant “bible”). “the love of many will grow cold. But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved.” (Mt. 24: 12-13) Christ doesn’t say “the one who makes a single confession of faith” but the one who continues to believe even after falling away.

We must “work out [our] salvation with fear and trembling.” (Phil 2:12) Here Paul reminds us that our salvation is a process and requires fear of the Lord suffering through trials, not some phony Praise and Worship service that declares everyone in the room is saved and can go ahead and have “fun” with their lives. No, this is not how it works.

 

[William_C]

Bballer, I can’t answer your whole post tonight, but this part of it is intriguing to me:
.

[Bballer32]Now, to answer your question. Yes, you can fall away from the state of grace.

What does that mean to you? “Fall from a state of grace.”

“Of forgiveness be not overconfident, adding sin upon sin. Say not:‘Great is his mercy; my many sins he will forgive.’ For mercy and anger alike are with him; upon the wicked alights his wrath.” (Sirach 5: 5-7) In this passage, one can relate to many OSAS believers because many of them have sinned mortally and have not gotten it removed, but still continue to proclaim salvation. Sirach reminds us that in order for us to stay with salvation, we must ask of forgiveness through confession, try to sin no more, and realize that our paths can change to matter what.

My understanding of what Sirach is saying is, don’t be overconfident that God will be merciful and forgive your many sins. He may not.

That completely contradicts what Paul says in Col 2:13-14.

Scripture cannot itself, that is untenable; therefore, one of two epistles isn’t Scripture.

Which one will you throw out, Bballer?

You know, Sirach also contradicts Ps 103:6-14.

Which one of those will throw out, Bballer? Sirach, or the Psalms?

 

[Philthy]

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…

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. 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. No one who is saved is saved without the benefit of Christ. You know that as well as I do. I suspect that is why although you quoted it as the section you were responding to, you never actually commented on it, and that is disingenuous of you.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

 

[Philthy]

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

 

[Philthy]

“Of forgiveness be not overconfident, adding sin upon sin…”

My understanding of what Sirach is saying is, don’t be overconfident that God will be merciful and forgive your many sins. He may not.

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 completely contradicts what Paul says in Col 2:13-14. Scripture cannot itself, that is untenable; therefore, one of two epistles isn’t Scripture.

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. 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.

I reiterate - go read all of Galatians slowly and prayerfully. Ask yourself why, exactly, Paul wrote the letter.