My Pastor said, "anyone who questions OSAS is saying that Jesus death on the cross was insufficient and even worthless and that is blasphemy."

[rtconstant]

I have personally run into many Protestants who think that once you say a sinners prayer that you NEVER sin after that. I have also run into some who think if you committed a sin that you need to be re-baptized. I think the problem arises is that there is no set doctrine amongst Protestants of what OSAS means.

Strangely the idea that a saved person will simply never sin is more consistent with the Baptist understanding of OSAS than with the view held by most. When I was Baptist there was that murky area, where that if one who is saved, is saved regardless. Yet there is an invisible line where you sin to much and then assumably you may have never been saved. Yet in the Baptist denomination’s view all sin is equal before God so then one must ask if all sin is equal then how does one judge when they’ve sinned enough to move into the “no true scotsman” area. After all sin is sin. Further since almost no one ever thinks they hit that invisible mark it becomes particularly hard to judge when to much sin is actually to much, or when one has indeed committed that one sin amongst equals that suggests that they were never saved in the first place.

It all becomes so nebulous that eventually the idea of just never committing another sin becomes an endeavor that is much easier to grasp and follow. At the very least it adds a level of consistent thinking that can make up for the loss of Calvin’s concept of predestination.

 

[po18guy]

Strangely the idea that a saved person will simply never sin is more consistent with the Baptist understanding of OSAS than with the view held by most. When I was Baptist there was that murky area, where that if one who is saved, is saved regardless. Yet there is an invisible line where you sin to much and then assumably you may have never been saved. Yet in the Baptist denomination’s view all sin is equal before God so then one must ask if all sin is equal then how does one judge when they’ve sinned enough to move into the “no true scotsman” area. After all sin is sin. Further since almost no one ever thinks they hit that invisible mark it becomes particularly hard to judge when to much sin is actually to much, or when one has indeed committed that one sin amongst equals that suggests that they were never saved in the first place.

It all becomes so nebulous that eventually the idea of just never committing another sin becomes an endeavor that is much easier to grasp and follow. At the very least it adds a level of consistent thinking that can make up for the loss of Calvin’s concept of predestination.

Thank you for this explanation. It is always good to hear the thought processes and difficulties experienced by those who practice some of the more recent developments in Christianity.

Sin is sin, and it remains the only thing which can separate us form our Lord. I have an NASB which some Southern Baptist friends gave us decades ago. Thus, I know that Baptist bibles have 1 John in them. Fifth chapter, sixteenth verse, John writes thus:

“If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.”

Of course, sins are differentiated in scripture, just as they have been since the early Church. The problem with modern application of this precept is: who is to judge these levels of sin? Categorizing sin, or indeed, even recognizing it as sin in some cases, leads only to further complication and disagreement.

I can see why there are many who simply believe that they no longer sin.

 

[rinnie]

My Pastor brought up security of the believer and made it abundantly clear that it was not a position that he would even discuss and if he was questioned on it he would get angry because anyone who questions OSAS is saying that Jesus death on the cross was insufficient and even worthless and that is blasphemy. Since he won’t allow questions:
#1. is there anyone who can enlighten me on how someone exercising their free will to turn away from the Lord (after initially being “saved”) is somehow making Christ’s sacrifice in vain?
#2. why someone like myself and my Husband who have been faithful church members for years and considered to be strong, mature Christians will now no longer be thought of as saved/going to heaven (or even Christians anymore for that matter) because we are joining the Catholic church?

I am sorry if I repeat anything I have not read any other responses yet. But what I cannot understand is why would any Preacher get angry on explaining the word of God.

Then I would ask him simply if OSAS is saying that the Death of the Cross of Christ is not sufficient then how would he define someone falling from grace into sin then. I would ask him if he believes that one can sin and fall from Gods Grace. If he says that sin cannot separate us from God and we can enter heaven with sin, then he is in direct contradiction with the word of God.

Because scripture states nothing unclean can enter heaven. And if you are in sin you are unclean and cannot enter heaven. Then if OSAS is what Christ meant by his death and ress. then how do we become unclean?

 

[Springkeeper]

I am sorry if I repeat anything I have not read any other responses yet. But what I cannot understand is why would any Preacher get angry on explaining the word of God.

Then I would ask him simply if OSAS is saying that the Death of the Cross of Christ is not sufficient then how would he define someone falling from grace into sin then. I would ask him if he believes that one can sin and fall from Gods Grace. If he says that sin cannot separate us from God and we can enter heaven with sin, then he is in direct contradiction with the word of God.

Because scripture states nothing unclean can enter heaven. And if you are in sin you are unclean and cannot enter heaven. Then if OSAS is what Christ meant by his death and ress. then how do we become unclean?

OSAS proponents believe that from the moment they “accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior”, ALL of their sins, past, present and future, have been “covered by the blood” and will no longer be charged to their account as it were.

Interestingly, the Pastors still ask their members to “come to the alter” and confess their sins to God and our Pastor said that if the Rapture were to happen in one hour he bet that the “alter” would be full. I asked my Husband, “What for? If all of their sins have already been forgiven what on earth are they supposed to confess at the alter?” If they really believe OSAS then they have to believe God would say “What sins are you talking about?”

 

[MelanieAnne]

I believe that “OSAS” denies reality. That’s my thinking.

I think it is nonsense to think that after someone is “saved” that then they can go ahead and commit the most grievous sins and it doesn’t matter because, for some unknown reason, they are already “saved”. That’s CRAZY! The OSAS people may try to equivocate about this, but there is NO GOOD ANSWER.

I choose not read the rest of the posts to what I have determined to be a “nonsense” thread. And so, after this, I will no longer post.

 

[po18guy]

OSAS proponents believe that from the moment they “accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior”, ALL of their sins, past, present and future, have been “covered by the blood” and will no longer be charged to their account as it were.

Interestingly, the Pastors still ask their members to “come to the alter” and confess their sins to God and our Pastor said that if the Rapture were to happen in one hour he bet that the “alter” would be full. I asked my Husband, “What for? If all of their sins have already been forgiven what on earth are they supposed to confess at the alter?” If they really believe OSAS then they have to believe God would say “What sins are you talking about?”

Two things come to mind:

1. What is the purpose of the altar, if not to offer sacrifice?
2. Where is the ‘altar call’ in scripture?

The altar is where the sacrifice of Christ is made present to us. It is a continuation of the Old Testament use of the altar for sacrificial purposes. It is not a re-sacrifice, as that is not possible, and would be a severe offense against God.

And, as to the ‘altar call’, I notice that substitutes for the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation have been introduced in recent times, since the human soul needs to confess its sins. On this same point, public confession is detailed in the Old Testament (see Nehemiah 9:1-3) as well as in the New Testament. James wrote that Christians should confess their ‘sins to one another’ (James 5:16). For this purpose, Jesus gave the Apostles power over sin (John 20:23).

The ‘altar call’ seems to conflate two Catholic Sacraments - the Holy Eucharist, which requires an altar, and Reconciliation, which does not.

 

[Contarini]

Two things come to mind:

1. What is the purpose of the altar, if not to offer sacrifice?

Indeed. The term was used largely because on the altar one offers oneself to God. My own Holiness tradition particularly emphasized this concept.

And, as to the ‘altar call’, I notice that substitutes for the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation have been introduced in recent times, since the human soul needs to confess its sins.

19th century in this case, which is certainly recent in terms of Christian history as a whole!

Edwin

 

[zz912]

That is exactly my church’s position! I have heard I don’t know how many times that so and so made a profession of faith when he/she was 12 (13, whatever) left the church and has been living like the Devil himself but at least he/she is saved and will go (or went) to heaven when he dies(or died)! I even heard a man state that his son had formally renounced his faith and willfully and deliberately committed serious sins and the Father was 100% convinced the son was still going to heaven because he had made an earnest profession of faith as an 11 year old.

I never understood the whole idea of God saying “you totally turned your back on me and spent the rest of your life willfully and deliberately sinning against me in every way you could and were the worst Christian witness ever so to punish you I’m going to bring you home to heaven and comfort you and wipe every tear from your eyes.” :dts:

What is funny is that they don’t believe in infant baptism, but a sinner’s prayer at 12 covers every sin in your life even those committed when you are a fully formed and functioning adult.

 

[rinnie]

OSAS proponents believe that from the moment they “accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior”, ALL of their sins, past, present and future, have been “covered by the blood” and will no longer be charged to their account as it were.

Interestingly, the Pastors still ask their members to “come to the alter” and confess their sins to God and our Pastor said that if the Rapture were to happen in one hour he bet that the “alter” would be full. I asked my Husband, “What for? If all of their sins have already been forgiven what on earth are they supposed to confess at the alter?” If they really believe OSAS then they have to believe God would say “What sins are you talking about?”

Good Point. Another thing that bothered me was how he would get angry A Pastor get angry like that, I mean don’t get me wrong I could see if it was abortion, etc. But to get angry because someone just did not understand a teaching. Wow.

I mean isn’t that their job to Teach the word of God? But then I guess that isn’t the word of God

 

[AmateurPianist]

My Pastor brought up security of the believer and made it abundantly clear that it was not a position that he would even discuss and if he was questioned on it he would get angry because anyone who questions OSAS is saying that Jesus death on the cross was insufficient and even worthless and that is blasphemy. Since he won’t allow questions:
#1. is there anyone who can enlighten me on how someone exercising their free will to turn away from the Lord (after initially being “saved”) is somehow making Christ’s sacrifice in vain?
#2. why someone like myself and my Husband who have been faithful church members for years and considered to be strong, mature Christians will now no longer be thought of as saved/going to heaven (or even Christians anymore for that matter) because we are joining the Catholic church?

You do realize that by holding this position your pastor considers a whole stream of Protestant, Wesleyanism, which consists of Methodists of course as well as more conservative groups like the church of Nazaerene, and most Pentecostal/Charismatic groups (including myself) guilty of blasphemy.

Oh and he is also anathematizing many historical figures like John Wesley.

Oh, and Lutherans do not hold to this so add all Lutherans and Martin Luther to the list.

Oh, and there is zero evidence that anybody believed in OSAS before some point after the reformation, we have to add everybody from the apostles to whatever this point in time is (somebody can figure when the first time a phrase like "a true believer can never lose his salvation appears…since it is not in the Bible the last I checked).

Your pastor might want to rethink this.

 

[po18guy]

You do realize that by holding this position your pastor considers a whole stream of Protestant, Wesleyanism, which consists of Methodists of course as well as more conservative groups like the church of Nazaerene, and most Pentecostal/Charismatic groups (including myself) guilty of blasphemy.

Oh and he is also anathematizing many historical figures like John Wesley.

Oh, and Lutherans do not hold to this so add all Lutherans and Martin Luther to the list.

Oh, and there is zero evidence that anybody believed in OSAS before some point after the reformation, we have to add everybody from the apostles to whatever this point in time is (somebody can figure when the first time a phrase like "a true believer can never lose his salvation appears…since it is not in the Bible the last I checked).

Your pastor might want to rethink this.

Whatever one’s faith tradition is, it must withstand scrutiny from a historical perspective. Looking at the theological history of the United States, one can see that a doctrinal free-for-all occurred in the 19th century. Its roots can be seen in the 18th century and it is flowering to this day. But, its fruits are division. Many theologies have come to represent the personalities and desires of their founders, irrespective of the origins of the faith. The rather extreme interpretation of OSAS, which was initially a more limited concept, stands as evidence of this phenomenon.

So, America is the Land of the free (to create your own doctrines) and the home of the brave (enough to actually do so).

 

[Padrej]

Whatever one’s faith tradition is, it must withstand scrutiny from a historical perspective. Looking at the theological history of the United States, one can see that a doctrinal free-for-all occurred in the 19th century. Its roots can be seen in the 18th century and it is flowering to this day. But, its fruits are division. Many theologies have come to represent the personalities and desires of their founders, irrespective of the origins of the faith. The rather extreme interpretation of OSAS, which was initially a more limited concept, stands as evidence of this phenomenon.

So, America is the Land of the free (to create your own doctrines) and the home of the brave (enough to actually do so).

Good observation. If you look up the history of the rapture “doctrine” that many Protestants hold to you will find that it was started in the 1830-40’s and was the vision of a NON Christian girl. The Plymouth Brethren got a hold of it and it soon became an accepted doctrine amongst Protestants today. As you point out there is nothing but confusion and I ask who according to scripture is the author of confusion. If you look much confusion was introduced with the Rapture.

 

[rinnie]

Good observation. If you look up the history of the rapture “doctrine” that many Protestants hold to you will find that it was started in the 1830-40’s and was the vision of a NON Christian girl. The Plymouth Brethren got a hold of it and it soon became an accepted doctrine amongst Protestants today. As you point out there is nothing but confusion and I ask who according to scripture is the author of confusion. If you look much confusion was introduced with the Rapture.

Padrej could you possibly give me a site here or Pm me if you have any info.on this. I would love to make this subject my drug of choice this week! I would like to check this Non Christian girl out. Thanks love!

 

[Padrej]

Padrej could you possibly give me a site here or Pm me if you have any info.on this. I would love to make this subject my drug of choice this week! I would like to check this Non Christian girl out. Thanks love!

reformed-theology.org/html/books/rapture/chapter6.htm
reformed-theology.org/html/issue06/pre-trib.htm
angelfire.com/mi/Malkaynu/rapture.html
theologue.org/OSRQ-A2.html
askelm.com/essentials/ess025.htm

 

[po18guy]

Good observation. If you look up the history of the rapture “doctrine” that many Protestants hold to you will find that it was started in the 1830-40’s and was the vision of a NON Christian girl. The Plymouth Brethren got a hold of it and it soon became an accepted doctrine amongst Protestants today. As you point out there is nothing but confusion and I ask who according to scripture is the author of confusion. If you look much confusion was introduced with the Rapture.

Sadly, the genesis of this seems to be the doctrine of sola scriptura. Once Church authority was rejected, the ego was allowed to interpret scripture. That, and the leading of passing spirits, who were at the ready for just such a development.

I read into the history of the Mennonites, a sect which was founded in northern Germany’s coastal area by a fallen away Catholic Priest, Menno Simons. I note that Simon’s movement away from the Catholic Church began with doubts about the Eucharist. The identity of the instigator of these doubts is clear, in my mind - the liar and father of lies. Soon after the founding of the “Mennonite” community, various disagreements erupted - one being over the acceptability of using buttons on clothing. Of course, there were many fractures, and one group became the Amish, following a man who disagreed with Simons.

One wonders where, and what it will take to stop this shattering of the Body of Christ.

 

[Jehoshua]

The shattering will end when the light of God banishes all shadows and the deciever is cast into the pit of fire.

Until the day of the fearsome judge the faithful must wait in joyful hope for the coming of the lord and continue to work for their salvation and for the salvation of all mankind, against the machinations of those who seek to keep man in darkness.

 

[Springkeeper]

Good observation. If you look up the history of the rapture “doctrine” that many Protestants hold to you will find that it was started in the 1830-40’s and was the vision of a NON Christian girl. The Plymouth Brethren got a hold of it and it soon became an accepted doctrine amongst Protestants today. As you point out there is nothing but confusion and I ask who according to scripture is the author of confusion. If you look much confusion was introduced with the Rapture.

History and the Early Church Fathers were ultimately what led me to the Catholic church. When two churches are intepreting the same Scripture two different ways I had to ask myself which church has been around longer and what has been said about this by the early Christians and if the early Christians did not believe it, then when did the belief start?

The Rapture belief is held so deeply in my church that when the 2012 nonsense came up, one member smugly said that it is impossible for the world to end in 2012 because all of the Christians would already have been raptured into heaven five years ago. I have heard far too many state that the Rapture is their “glorious hope” and in what they have faith. I asked, your faith should be in Jesus Christ alone? Apparently, some believe faith in Jesus and faith in the Rapture is the same thing.

 

[Padrej]

History and the Early Church Fathers were ultimately what led me to the Catholic church. When two churches are intepreting the same Scripture two different ways I had to ask myself which church has been around longer and what has been said about this by the early Christians and if the early Christians did not believe it, then when did the belief start?

The Rapture belief is held so deeply in my church that when the 2012 nonsense came up, one member smugly said that it is impossible for the world to end in 2012 because all of the Christians would already have been raptured into heaven five years ago. I have heard far too many state that the Rapture is their “glorious hope” and in what they have faith. I asked, your faith should be in Jesus Christ alone? Apparently, some believe faith in Jesus and faith in the Rapture is the same thing.

If I were you I would be well out of that church and shake the dust off my feet at the same time. Faith in the rapture is NO hope. Faith in Jesus IS hope.

 

[FrJohnB]

If I were you I would be well out of that church and shake the dust off my feet at the same time. Faith in the rapture is NO hope. Faith in Jesus IS hope.

Wise words of wisdom Padre. Especially the last line.

 

[Springkeeper]

If I were you I would be well out of that church and shake the dust off my feet at the same time. Faith in the rapture is NO hope. Faith in Jesus IS hope.

Within the past 4 weeks, I have signed up fo RCIA, started annulment paperwork, and enrolled in one of our local Catholic congregations and have been attending both weekday and 0700 Sunday Mass. My Husband told me we (our family) will be leaving our current church as soon as he finishes wrapping up his business as Church treasurer (out last treasurer literally dropped dead and he was the assistant-it has been quite a mess to fix). Either way, I am definitively leaving when either my annulment paperwork is (hopefully) approved or when I finish RCIA.