OSAS and losing salvation

[ryanoneil]

How about this one…

“If anyone sees his brother sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray about that. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to death. We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him.” (1 John 5:16-18, NKJV)

One who truly has been born again will not habitually sin unto death…period.

C2C

“For we **have become **partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end,” (Hebrews 3:14, NKJV)

1 John 5:16-18 doesn’t say or prove anything about salvation. This is an example of proverbial literature which John uses frequently. Another example is 1 John 1:8 If we say, “We are without sin,” we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Proverbial literature tries to make a point by using an absolute, even though the absolute is necessarily qualified ( as seen by 1 John 1:8 which seemingly contradicts 1 John 5:18).

Peace,

Ryan

 

[nsper7]

I disagree with OSAS. My intellectual view (my emotional feelings on Salvation vary because I am always that I’ve lost my Salvation after I sinned or something) is the following:

1. Sin (except for unbelief) cannot cause someone to directly lose their Salvation
2. Since, from my understanding, eternal life is connected to belief (John 3:16 and other places, and by belief I mean trusting in Jesus’ sacrifice to pay for sin and acknowledging certain truths about who Jesus was and what He did), then if one stopped believing, they would no longer be Saved (how can they be Saved if they reject the only means of Salvation?)

Now, what about if someone continually sins, especially if they are sinning willfully, without confession to God (either directly or through another person)?

BTW- when I say ‘willful’ is sinning and they know/believe they are sinning, yet they sin anyway.

1. They may face an earthly punishment (i.e. compare King Saul losing his kingdom, Moses being denied entry into the Promised Land, etc.)
2. They may die physically (i.e. Ananias in Acts [remember, the Scripture never says he lost his Salvation, only his earthly life], Paul’s warning to the Corinthians about illness and death and the warning in 1 John about the sin unto death). Personally, the idea of having to explain to the Lord why I kept sinning even though I knew better is not appealing.
3. They may lose some kind of reward/treasure in Heaven.
4. Anecdotally, I have noticed that I do not enjoy sin when I have committed it. I might have a momentary sense of enjoyment, but I feel ashamed (esp. if I sinned willfully), scared, guilty, etc. and I feel ‘dirty’ for lack of a better term and I, eventually, want to confess it to God or someone else (if only to alleviate that sense of dirtiness, fear and a guilty conscience).

Although I do not believe sin could directly cause loss of Salvation, I question (I do not want to test this theory or see someone else test it) whether if one continued sinning willfully if it could lead to disbelief; here is an example as I could see it happening:

1. Person A repeatedly commits a willful sin and never confesses to God about it
2. Person A, since they notice know overt punishment for their sin, begins to think that they are either not really sinning or that sin isn’t really that bad
3. Person A, if they feel they are not really sinning, begins to think that there is no such thing as sin OR, if they fall into thinking that their sin isn’t really that bad, they begin to believe that sin, in general, is not that big a deal
4. Person A, either feeling that there is no such thing as sin or that sin isn’t really that bad, no longer feels a need for a Savior (Jesus Christ)
5. Person A is no longer in belief (they have rejected the sacrifice of Jesus Christ)

I honestly do not know if this situation could happen (they might commit sin unto earthly death before they reached a point of sprititual death OR they might not have truly been believing to begin with I don’t think growing up in a Christian family, being baptized, going through rote ritual motions, doing good works, etc. is the same as belief, although they might appear to be a ‘good Christian’ outwardly) and, as I said, I have no intention of testing that one out and I hope no one proves this theory correct.

 

[surgei]

Can you vary Pascals wager to fit this issue? that is if the one who believes that salvation is achieved after an initial act of repentace be seen like the athiest, and the person who believes that it is our life in repentance that attain for us salvation in the end be compared to the christian. If it is the initial then both are saved and both win. If it is the live of repentance then one may win and the other loose. Therefore it is better to live like salvation is attained through the whole life rather than by the single event.

 

[nsper7]

Can you vary Pascals wager to fit this issue? that is if the one who believes that salvation is achieved after an initial act of repentace be seen like the athiest, and the person who believes that it is our life in repentance that attain for us salvation in the end be compared to the christian. If it is the initial then both are saved and both win. If it is the live of repentance then one may win and the other loose. Therefore it is better to live like salvation is attained through the whole life rather than by the single event.

1. Is it ‘better’? Maybe. Isn’t the goal to seek and spread correct doctrine and beliefs (I’m sorry if that sounds mean)? Obviously, if the second option is true, then it is better. If the first option is the correct one, then by adding things to the Salvation process (in this case, ‘life in repenteance’, which could be defined differently depending on who one asks), one could cause others to choose not to believe or to live in fear of loss of Salvation (as I deal with), thus making them a poor witness to the Truth.
2. As I said, I do not believe in OSAS. If someone, for whatever reasons, stops beliving (trusting in Jesus’ sacrifice), then they may have lost their Salvation (in the end, it is up to God, not me or anyone else).
3. I do believe that there will be negative consequences for someone who continues to sin willfully.
4. Anecdotally, I have noticed that, in the long run, I do not like sinning. I confess I still sin, sometimes even willfully (i.e. I deal with pornography/cybersex issues), but I feel ashamed, guilty and dirty afterwards. I get nervous that I could lose my Salvation (or that I was never truly Saved in the first place). To paraphrase St. Paul, there is a part of me that might enjoy sin and want to sin, but there is a definitely a part of me that doesn’t want to. If someone got to a point where they were continually sinning and weren’t even able to recognize that they were sinning and they were unwilling to confess to God or to someone else that they had sinned and had disobeyed God (it may take a few days, they maybe ashamed or whatever, but I mean if they never felt a need to talk to God about it or to someone else), then I question if they might have fallen into disbelief in that theory I mentioned.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I would never say that Jesus did wrong by choosing him–Judas did wrong not only in betraying Jesus but despairing against the Holy Spirit and oif the ability of Jesus to forgive him.

Such blasphemy will not be forgiven in this world or the world to come.

Jesus maybe hinted at that. But He didn’t actually say it.

 

[mikeledes]

You are misusing this passage…this is speaking of external righteousness…

This passgage from Ezekiel is not about mere external righteous because the persons in question are righteous before God, not men:

"You shall llive means that God has deemed/declared you righteous and pleasing in His sight. Thus, it can never refer to someone who has not been justified by His grace:

Ezekiel 3:21

**21"However, if you have warned the righteous man that the righteous should not sin and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; and you have delivered yourself." **

Ezekiel 18:9

**9if he walks in My statutes and My ordinances so as to deal faithfully–he is righteous and will surely live," declares the Lord GOD. **

Ezekiel 18:21

21"But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die.

"You shall die means that God has deemed you unrighteous/wicked and God has not found you pleasing in His sight.

Ezekiel 3:19

19"Yet if you have warned the wicked and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity

Ezekiel 18:13

13… He will not live! He has committed all these abominations, he will surely be put to death…"

Ezekiel 18:23

**23"Do I have any pleasure in the death of the wicked," declares the Lord GOD, "rather than that he should turn from his ways and live? **

God never says He shall surely live to anyone who is not righteous in His sight, to a person who has not been justified by His grace. Therefore, when we have a verse like:

Ezekiel 33:13

13"When I say to the righteous he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed he will die.

God will never call a person “righteous” if they have not been justified by His grace and he would definitely not tell that person he shall surely live - a phrase only used in reference to the genuinely righteous and the repentant sinner - if that person is not pleasing in His sight and has not genuinely repented of his sins.

Ezekiel 33:13 is actually a “companion piece” to Ezekiel 18:5-9. The latter states:

**5"But if a man is righteous and practices justice and righteousness,
6and does not eat at the mountain shrines or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, or defile his neighbor’s wife or approach a woman during her menstrual period–
7if a man does not oppress anyone, but restores to the debtor his pledge, does not commit robbery, but gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with clothing,
8if he does not lend money on interest or take increase, if he keeps his hand from iniquity and executes true justice between man and man,
9if he walks in My statutes and My ordinances so as to deal faithfully–he is righteous and will surely live," declares the Lord GOD. **

So God has declared the person righteous in His sight and finds his righteous acts pleasing. He thus gives the person His seal of approavel (He shall surely live). But what does Ezekiel 33:13 state:

**13"When I say to the righteous he will surely live, and he so trusts in his righteousness that he commits iniquity, none of his righteous deeds will be remembered; but in that same iniquity of his which he has committed he will die. **

So after God gives his seal of approval to a righteous person (“He shall surely live)” and has thus declared the person and their righteous acts pleasing in His sight, the righteous person now figures that since God was so pleased with him and his conduct, he can “relax” and commit iniquity, believing that his righteous past will cover him. He figures that God is pleased with him, so He’ll cut him some slack. Wrong! We already know what happens.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

What about free will ? ## That could also be said of some Catholic doctrines. OSAS can be justified by the same theological reasoning as is used to justify Catholic doctrines: that it was latent in the sources of revelation, & had therefore always been implicitly believed. St. Ignatius of Antioch does not refer to it - neither does he refer to the mediation of all graces by the BVM. If one doctrine can be Catholic yet implicit, so can OSAS. That it is not accepted at present, is no proof it won’t be. It has quite a solid Biblical foundation## So many doctrines seem to be, unless & until one looks at them thoroughly & sympathetically - the same could be said of most Catholic or Christian doctrines: such as the Incarnation or the Crucifixion. ## Because the more we forget our own selfish anxieties on this point, & the more we look to Him, rather than ourselves, the more we are going to be the sort of people who are saved.​

God does not play games - we’ve been over this already. He cannot lie. ES is not a thing we do - it’s something He does, He gives, He provides. Insecurity ? Anything but !

Plants don’t grow & flourish by tearing up their roots, but by being nourished by the sun. So with Christians: we will get nowhere if we insist on tearing up our roots to see whether or how much we are growing into salvation; for the roots are what allow us to be growing. You’re still treating OSAS as though it were dependent on us. It is not. Spousal love does not grow as a result of selfish obsession with one’s own good; that’s how to kill a marriage. It grows by love of one another - & love is self-forgetful; it is poured out, not turned inward. And that is how we grow into salvation - we find ourselves in the measure that we forget ourselves. That is the dialectic of OSAS, or part of it. This is paradoxical, like so much in Christian life. Paradoxes are true - not false. And even this is an oversimplification - for the salvation of all the elect is assisted by countless causes, all of them governed & made fruitful by God, without Whom no creature can do anything.

As for trusting God - one trusts Him by trusting Him, not by theorising about trusting Him. God is the only Reality - therefore, no temptation to distrust or doubt Him is worth a second’s notice. The only sanity is to trust Him without the slightest reserve - it is not possible for God to be false; that is what we are, never what He is. BTW - OSAS should never be confused with assurance of salvation. OSAS does not depend for its reality on awareness of it - whereas assurance is not possessed without awareness of it.

One believes Him, even when believing Him is senseless - or one does not believe Him. And one cannot have faith in Him by proxy.

Although Catholicism teaches that those predestined to glory (i.e. the elect) cannot lose their salvation, we should not use the phrase “OSAS” because it is loaded with Protestant meaning that contradicts Catholic teaching.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[MarcoPolo]

You are misusing this passage…this is speaking of external righteousness…

I see many others have offered responses to your position as well. I look forward to your responses to how your understanding of 1 John 5 fits in with the rest of Scripture.

I won’t make you read the multitude of verses at the end of the link I provided that talk about falling away. Here’s just a couple:

Gal 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel

1 Cor 15:2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

Indeed, as you said, all persons who are united with Christ will be saved. However to add that all those persons will remain united to Christ would be an error. Only after death will those persons forever remain united. Do you see what I am saying my friend?

 

[nsper7]

Is that Ezekial passage addressing Salvation or physical life? Paul and others warn that sin can lead to physical death (whether as a punishment or to prevent the person from continuing in sin can be discussed).

Gal 1:6 and 1 Cor 15:2 seem to go along with the idea that Salvation (eternal life) is connected to belief. If you stop believing, then your Salvation is called into question (I hesitate to declare that someone is no longer Saved because in the end, that is up to God).

Continuous willful sin with no repentance would either be a sign the person does not truly believe or could lead to unbelief. Anecdotally, to all Christians (Roman Catholic, ‘Protestant’, etc.), when you sin (esp. if it is a willful sin), do you at some point feel guilty, recognize that you have done something and feel a need to confess/ask for forgiveness (either from from God directly or indirectly)?

 

[mikeledes]

Is that Ezekial passage addressing Salvation or physical life? Paul and others warn that sin can lead to physical death (whether as a punishment or to prevent the person from continuing in sin can be discussed).

Gal 1:6 and 1 Cor 15:2 seem to go along with the idea that Salvation (eternal life) is connected to belief. If you stop believing, then your Salvation is called into question (I hesitate to declare that someone is no longer Saved because in the end, that is up to God).

Continuous willful sin with no repentance would either be a sign the person does not truly believe or could lead to unbelief. Anecdotally, to all Christians (Roman Catholic, ‘Protestant’, etc.), when you sin (esp. if it is a willful sin), do you at some point feel guilty, recognize that you have done something and feel a need to confess/ask for forgiveness (either from from God directly or indirectly)?

The issue here is that, according to Calvinism at least, all of the justified will persevere. Anyone who falls away was not a true believer and was not justified to begin with. The verses in Ezekiel the possibility of someone being righteous, turning away from righteousness, and dying in that state as punishment. If you die in that state, you haven’t persevered to the end.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[nsper7]

The issue here is that, according to Calvinism at least, all of the justified will persevere. Anyone who falls away was not a true believer and was not justified to begin with. The verses in Ezekiel the possibility of someone being righteous, turning away from righteousness, and dying in that state as punishment. If you die in that state, you haven’t persevered to the end.

God Bless,
Michael

Calvinists are a fun group to deal with. A few weeks ago, I got into a theological discussion with a hyper-Calvinist and it is the only time someone has ever accused me of apostasy (and he didn’t even use the word correctly; if you want to accuse someone of having wrong doctrine and beliefs, you accuse them of heresy).

Some of the gems I received from him:

1. Calvinism (the idea of strong predestination) is not Calvinistic, but simply the right interpretation of Scripture
2. We have no need for Old Testament prophecy because Jesus supercedes all that (he accused me of apostasy when I asked him how, without the Messianic Prophecies, we can know that Jesus is the Messiah)

In fairness, I don’t know too much about Calvinism, so this guy could’ve been a fundementalist who has applied his dogmatism to Calvinist thought.

My main issue with Calvinism is that, even if it is the ‘correct’ interpretation, is that it seems irrelevant to the Believer. After all, if we are already predestined to Heaven or to Hell and nothing we do can change that, then why should we care? I compared it to the dice game, craps: you either roll a seven or you don’t. That really irritated him, but that was the way it seemed like he described it.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

This clearly does not wash. Judas went out with the 12 and with the 72. Jesus told them all to rejoice that their names were written in the book of life.

“All” does not always mean “all” - as people keep insisting in threads about Romans 3.23 ​

Not that that is relevant here, because Jesus addresses them generally, without saying “all”.

Furthermore, Lucifer was in heaven with God!!! How can you say he was not saved? He threw away his privilege to be in God’s presence.

He was not saved, because he was not in need of redemption; he lost a state of glory already possessed. This is not the case with those who are redeemed by the Blood of Christ. There is no comparison between fallen angels & men raised from the death of sin: the former inherit a damnation which they had never possessed & from which therefore they needed no salvation; whereas all men come into the world under the rule of sin, & are therefore in dire need of salvation if they are to escape the wrath & curse of God.​

With respect to that, Jesus tells the disciples that, if they persevere, he will not blot out their names from the book of life. How can you blot out a name that was not written? Why would Jesus say He would not blot it out if that were not possible?

That their names were not in the book of life, is an inference for which there is no foundation in the text. Something that is already the case, can be the subject of a promise that it will remain the case. If a child promises to be good, does it follow that it has been naughty when it makes the promise ? “I promise not to kill you” is no proof I am already doing so, or that anyone else is. Maybe it has been, & maybe I am - there is no way to tell, purely from the words. ​

Nothing can be inferred as to any abstract possibility that one’s name already present will be blotted out, just as nothing can be built on the “until” of Matt. 1.25 - the emphasis is on the promise of Christ, not on the doctrine of predestination.

This is true, of course, but all it demonstrates is that “saved from hell” is not a comprehensive definition of what it means to be saved.

 

[MarcoPolo]

After all, if we are already predestined to Heaven or to Hell and nothing we do can change that, then why should we care?

I had a similar conversation in this thread, and it’s hard to get a clear description of how we have free will yet can’t fall away once we are believers.

I find the whole Calvinistic “if you fall away you were never a believer to begin with” quite peculiar. Because those I have spoken to readily admit that a genuine believer can still sin, just not so much he will lose salvation. So the notion is that God will let them sin, sin, and sin some more, but save them. If I were a Calvinist, I would really wonder why if God was guaranteed to preserve me, why would He let me sin at all?

 

[nsper7]

I had a similar conversation in this thread, and it’s hard to get a clear description of how we have free will yet can’t fall away once we are believers.

That conversation with Sproul and the others sounded like the responses that Calvinist gave me. Even if Calvinism is a correct doctrine, it seems quite indefensible by means of Sola Scriptura. The fact that the guy I spoke to immediately claimed that his interpretation was not an interpretation, but Biblical truth, denies the importance of OT prophecy and accused me of apostasy when I challenged him doesn’t strength his case. I do not consider myself a Calvinist.

BTW- isn’t it ironic when people claim Sola Scriptura, but then follow up with how they’re a Calvinist or a Lutheran (note that Luther was adament about not naming a church after him)? As a person who is planning on getting confirmed into the Episcopal Church, I can defend our group’s name references our governance by bishops and reliance on Apostolic Succession, both of which are Scripturally sound and backed by some of the earliest known interpreters of the New Testament (the Church Fathers).

 

[MarcoPolo]

I had a similar conversation in this thread, and it’s hard to get a clear description of how we have free will yet can’t fall away once we are believers.

That conversation with Sproul and the others sounded like the responses that Calvinist gave me. Even if Calvinism is a correct doctrine, it seems quite indefensible by means of Sola Scriptura. The fact that the guy I spoke to immediately claimed that his interpretation was not an interpretation, but Biblical truth, denies the importance of OT prophecy and accused me of apostasy when I challenged him doesn’t strength his case. I do not consider myself a Calvinist.

BTW- isn’t it ironic when people claim Sola Scriptura, but then follow up with how they’re a Calvinist or a Lutheran (note that Luther was adament about not naming a church after him)? As a person who is planning on getting confirmed into the Episcopal Church, I can defend our group’s name references our governance by bishops and reliance on Apostolic Succession, both of which are Scripturally sound and backed by some of the earliest known interpreters of the New Testament (the Church Fathers).

Indeed. Scripture alone should tell him proper interpretation is done publicly through the Church.2 Peter 1:20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.