OSAS you got a BIG PROBLEM

[rinnie]

I see this as a parallel of Jesus saying we must be “born again”. Were you born previously? Yes. Were you alive previously? Yes. But were your born in the Spirit? No. But were you alive in the Spirit? No. Now you are born again. Now you are alive again.

I disagree totally Let me explain why. Was I born previously no. I was dead with sin when I was born. I was reborn in the Spirit saved from sin at the moment of my Baptism. Saved from original sin. I became alive, saved.

Can I become dead like the Pro. son, Yes I can, just like him. I can become dead with sin. How do I become alive again and rid myself of the sin. The same as the Prod. Son, I must repent and confess my sin, be sorry and ask for forgiveness. Then I become once again alive.

Again read the scripture this sonof mine was DEAD that means with sin, hand has come to LIFE Again which means is saved. But the key word here is he is saying his son is SAVED AGAIN. Now if he was saved once, how can he be saved again? That’s my question and I have yet to acquire my answer.

Back to the point of this post, Blows OSAS right out of the water does it not?

Now my question to you, how can I be alive, which means saved without Baptism?

 

[SteveVH]

I’ll preface by saying that I’m not a OSAS subscriber…

That being said, I don’t see your example from Philippians is as evidence against it. I know it’s commonly used as such but when I read the verse in the context, the underlying meaning seems much less like ‘earn your salvation by doing works’ and more like ‘live out your salvation by doing works’. We are called to do so with trembling and fear of God out of respect for His awesomeness.

Well, I don’t think it has anything to do with works, unless you define a “work” as remaining faithful to God. What Paul’s words say to me is that we cannot accept Jesus into our lives and then rest on our laurels. We must persevere to the end because it is possible to loose our salvation; to be led away by the enemy. Thus, we work out our salvation in fear and trembling, persevering to the end. If we were already saved, this would not be a concern.

 

[cargau]

It is if you think what I am telling you. The Father said because this SON of mine was DEAD, and has come to life AGAIN.

We both know that the son was alive to begin with. He was ALIVE, WITHOUT SIN, then he became death, he was in the state of MORTAL SIN, then he Repented and became ALIVE AGAIN.

If you are OSAS you cannot become alive AGAIN. Are you getting what I am saying now?

You have to be alive to die, do you not agree? So if you are ALIVE which is called Saved, how can you die, and become alive AGAIN?

Yes, you must be alive in order to die. It is your next line where you make kind of a leap.
OSAS folks believe that they are saved regardless of whether they are dead or alive. They are still capable of sin and thus death even after the ascent to Jesus as Lord and Savior. But, they are always, nevertheless saved through the blood of the cross. If they are dead, they will be brought to life through no personal merit but rather throuigh the saving mystery of the cross.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

I disagree totally Let me explain why. Was I born previously no. I was dead with sin when I was born. I was reborn in the Spirit saved from sin at the moment of my Baptism. Saved from original sin. I became alive, saved.

Can I become dead like the Pro. son, Yes I can, just like him. I can become dead with sin. How do I become alive again and rid myself of the sin. The same as the Prod. Son, I must repent and confess my sin, be sorry and ask for forgiveness. Then I become once again alive.

Again read the scripture this sonof mine was DEAD that means with sin, hand has come to LIFE Again which means is saved. But the key word here is he is saying his son is SAVED AGAIN. Now if he was saved once, how can he be saved again? That’s my question and I have yet to acquire my answer.

Back to the point of this post, Blows OSAS right out of the water does it not?

Now my question to you, how can I be alive, which means saved without Baptism?

I think you’re misunderstanding the parallel I’m drawing. Each word has two meanings. For example, everyone is born but not everyone is born [of the Spirit]. Everyone is alive but not everyone is alive [in the Spirit].

At one time, you were not born in the Spirit despite being born in the flesh. At one time you were dead in spiritual terms but you were alive in the flesh.

Do I think this “blows OSAS right out of the water”? No, I do not. Could it be an argument against it? Yes it could, but I don’t see it close to being ironclad.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Well, I don’t think it has anything to do with works, unless you define a “work” as remaining faithful to God. What Paul’s words say to me is that we cannot accept Jesus into our lives and then rest on our laurels.

This is exactly what Paul is saying there (IMO). Very well put.

We must persevere to the end because it is possible to loose our salvation; to be led away by the enemy. Thus, we work out our salvation in fear and trembling, persevering to the end. If we were already saved, this would not be a concern.

You’re combining Philippians with Matthew as if they are the same scripture, though. I’m with you on the Matthew one. I think Jesus is definitely implying that it’s possible to surrender your faith and salvation. Whereas Paul, is stating just as you did above. If Christ is in us, we are called to live like He is in us to prove ourselves to be “blameless and innocent” in the “midst of a crooked and perverse generation” so that we can “appear as lights in the world”. (v15)

We can agree that we don’t believe in OSAS, but I suppose we’ll have to disagree on the meaning of Phillipians 2.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

Well, I don’t think it has anything to do with works, unless you define a “work” as remaining faithful to God. What Paul’s words say to me is that we cannot accept Jesus into our lives and then rest on our laurels. We must persevere to the end because it is possible to loose our salvation; to be led away by the enemy. Thus, we work out our salvation in fear and trembling, persevering to the end. If we were already saved, this would not be a concern.

That sounds like a logic the o.s.a.s. crowd can’t understand.
Christ never said life would be easy. Take up your cross and follow me.
O.S.A.S. is a very dangerous theology and feel sorry for those who believe this garbage taught by those who are filled with spiritual pride. This is a product sola scriptura and what happens when you separate The Bible from the church that produced it…

Great post SteveVH.

God Bless,

Matthew

 

[rinnie]

I think you’re misunderstanding the parallel I’m drawing. Each word has two meanings. For example, everyone is born but not everyone is born [of the Spirit]. Everyone is alive but not everyone is alive [in the Spirit].

At one time, you were not born in the Spirit despite being born in the flesh. At one time you were dead in spiritual terms but you were alive in the flesh.

Do I think this “blows OSAS right out of the water”? No, I do not. Could it be an argument against it? Yes it could, but I don’t see it close to being ironclad.

Then if I am making a leap how can the story say the son of mine WAS DEAD and has cme to LIFE AGAIN.

IF the SON was just alive and then died you are trying to say he died and came back to life. Now it is you who have to be misunderstanding.

Read that words again this son of mine was DEAD, to be Dead is to be in a state of sin, Unsaved. then the Father says but now he as come to LIFE Again.

Why would the Father say AGAIN. Please explain this to me.

Lets say I tell you I once had a million dollars in the bank, but then I lost it in the stock market. but then the stock market came back and I have a million dollars AGAIN. How could I have lost a million dollars but have a milllion AGAIN if I never had a million to begin with?

 

[rinnie]

Yes, you must be alive in order to die. It is your next line where you make kind of a leap.
OSAS folks believe that they are saved regardless of whether they are dead or alive. They are still capable of sin and thus death even after the ascent to Jesus as Lord and Savior. But, they are always, nevertheless saved through the blood of the cross. If they are dead, they will be brought to life through no personal merit but rather throuigh the saving mystery of the cross.

Also I understand what they believe. They believe that they cannot lose Salvation. This is the whole point of what I am saying. The parable PROVES they can, but the words this son of mine was DEAD and has come to life AGAIN.

Not one person has explained how the word again does not PROVE that you cannot lose salvation through sin.

People have gone all over the place with one scripture or another, but lets keep on Post here and explain this one

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

Then if I am making a leap how can the story say the son of mine WAS DEAD and has cme to LIFE AGAIN.

IF the SON was just alive and then died you are trying to say he died and came back to life. Now it is you who have to be misunderstanding.

Read that words again this son of mine was DEAD, to be Dead is to be in a state of sin, Unsaved. then the Father says but now he as come to LIFE Again.

Why would the Father say AGAIN. Please explain this to me.

Lets say I tell you I once had a million dollars in the bank, but then I lost it in the stock market. but then the stock market came back and I have a million dollars AGAIN. How could I have lost a million dollars but have a milllion AGAIN if I never had a million to begin with?

Just like Nicodemus didn’t understand why Jesus said “again” in reference to being born because didn’t realize there were two meanings to being “born”, so here there is a parallel with the Prod Son and two meanings of being “alive”.

Again, I’m not saying your argument isn’t valid, it’s just not compelling.

 

[rinnie]

Just like Nicodemus didn’t understand why Jesus said “again” in reference to being born because didn’t realize there were two meanings to being “born”, so here there is a parallel with the Prod Son and two meanings of being “alive”.

Again, I’m not saying your argument isn’t valid, it’s just not compelling.

How much more compelling can you get.

The OSAS claim that once you are SAVED (born again, baptised) you cannot lose salvation. This scripture proves you can HAVE salvation, then loose Salvation, then repent be forgiven and gain Salvation again.

I do not see how you do not see this compelling.

 

[SteveVH]

This is exactly what Paul is saying there (IMO). Very well put.

Well, thanks for the compliment but I don’t think we are agreeing on the same thing. You are implying that working out our salvation in fear and trembling means to follow Christ out of a sense of gratitude for what he has done. I agree that that is a valid motivation, but that is not what Paul was speaking of. Being faithful out of a sense of gratitude is not the same as fearing the the loss of salvation. You made a statement before that “fear and trembling” is really referring to a sense of awe concerning our God. While Paul most certainly would have had a sense of awe, I don’t think that is the subject matter to which he was referring.

You’re combining Philippians with Matthew as if they are the same scripture, though.

Different scriptures, but the same truth.

I’m with you on the Matthew one. I think Jesus is definitely implying that it’s possible to surrender your faith and salvation. Whereas Paul, is stating just as you did above. If Christ is in us, we are called to live like He is in us to prove ourselves to be “blameless and innocent” in the “midst of a crooked and perverse generation” so that we can “appear as lights in the world”. (v15)

We can agree that we don’t believe in OSAS, but I suppose we’ll have to disagree on the meaning of Phillipians 2.

Not a problem.

God bless.

 

[FaithfulAndTrue]

How much more compelling can you get.

The OSAS claim that once you are SAVED (born again, baptised) you cannot lose salvation. This scripture proves you can HAVE salvation, then loose Salvation, then repent be forgiven and gain Salvation again.

I do not see how you do not see this compelling.

Well, I’m sorry to disappoint you that I don’t find it over-the-top compelling. Is it an argument against? Yes, it could very well be. Is it the end-all argument against? I really don’t agree that it is.

We agree in that we both disagree with the OSAS doctrine but are moved to that same conclusion by different scriptures.

 

[rinnie]

Well, I’m sorry to disappoint you that I don’t find it over-the-top compelling. Is it an argument against? Yes, it could very well be. Is it the end-all argument against? I really don’t agree that it is.

We agree in that we both disagree with the OSAS doctrine but are moved to that same conclusion by different scriptures.

That is my point it is a argument against. I have not found ONE person who can say this is NOT an argument against, thats my point.

 

[guanophore]

Also I understand what they believe. They believe that they cannot lose Salvation. This is the whole point of what I am saying. The parable PROVES they can, but the words this son of mine was DEAD and has come to life AGAIN.

Not one person has explained how the word again does not PROVE that you cannot lose salvation through sin.

People have gone all over the place with one scripture or another, but lets keep on Post here and explain this one

This one is very easy for a dispensationalist to get out of. You see, Jesus did not really have a lot to say about the doctrine of salvation. He was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. This parable is directed toward those Jews who are circumcised under the old covenant. You see, Rinnie, although everything in Scripture was written “for” you, not all of it is written “about” you. This parable can’t be applied to converts “this side of the cross”.

Converts were never part of the household of God.

 

[guanophore]

How much more compelling can you get.

The OSAS claim that once you are SAVED (born again, baptised) you cannot lose salvation. This scripture proves you can HAVE salvation, then loose Salvation, then repent be forgiven and gain Salvation again.

I do not see how you do not see this compelling.

No, it proves nothing of the kind. The son was born into the household (covenant of God) and strayed away from the faith. He returned to the house into which he had been sealed.

Even if this passage could be applied to converts (which they say it does not) then they would just say that perseverance of the saints applies. God had already saved the boy, so he would have returned no matter what. This is part of God’s irresistable grace. He would not have died in a state of separation from the father. He could not, because God would see to it that he returned.

 

[rinnie]

No, it proves nothing of the kind. The son was born into the household (covenant of God) and strayed away from the faith. He returned to the house into which he had been sealed.

Even if this passage could be applied to converts (which they say it does not) then they would just say that perseverance of the saints applies. God had already saved the boy, so he would have returned no matter what. This is part of God’s irresistable grace. He would not have died in a state of separation from the father. He could not, because God would see to it that he returned.

How could God have already saved the boy and you say he would have returned no matter what?

If you say that, then you are saying we do not have free will.

MY question is and still is, let me ask you again was the Son saved BEFORE he left his Fathers house Yes or No? First answer that.

 

[guanophore]

How could God have already saved the boy and you say he would have returned no matter what?

They call it the “Golden Chain of Salvation”. Those whom he justifies, he sanctifies, and those He sanctifies, he glorifies.

Even Catholics agree we are saved in baptism, which replaces circumcision as the initiation rite to the Covenant.

If you say that, then you are saying we do not have free will.

That is part of the OSAS package.

MY question is and still is, let me ask you again was the Son saved BEFORE he left his Fathers house Yes or No? First answer that.

Yes, he was saved because he was born into the covenant. He was already a member of the Father’s house. He strayed, and God disciplined him as He does with all His sons, and, as the Father desired, he returned to the place he always belonged.

 

[rinnie]

They call it the “Golden Chain of Salvation”. Those whom he justifies, he sanctifies, and those He sanctifies, he glorifies.

Even Catholics agree we are saved in baptism, which replaces circumcision as the initiation rite to the Covenant.

That is part of the OSAS package.

Yes, he was saved because he was born into the covenant. He was already a member of the Father’s house. He strayed, and God disciplined him as He does with all His sons, and, as the Father desired, he returned to the place he always belonged.

Hi guan, sorry I was in Florida all week with my Mom. I am still not understanding how you are saying this is not a good argument against OSAS.

Rather it was Baptism in the old sense, we could say, or the New it was still IMO does not change the story,

Again the story said was DEAD but now is ALIVE AGAIN. That still blows onced saved always saved out of the water.

 

[Publisher]

“Where angels fear to tread”…the parable ISN’T about the son…either son…the parable is about the Father’s goodness and faithfulness. Jesus is saying “This is what God is like.” To move the focus away from the love and faithfulness of the Father is to miss the whole point of the story…IMO.

:twocents:

 

[jlhargus]

That is my point it is a argument against. I have not found ONE person who can say this is NOT an argument against, thats my point.

JL: I notice not ONE OSAS person has tried to refute you.