OSAS

[rinnie]

And as St. Paul said, “I do not judge myself. I am not aware of anything against myself, but that does not mean I am acquitted. It is the Lord Who judges me.” - 1 Cor. 4:3-4

Bingo, And that proves that we can all fall from Grace. If we couldn’t why would we have judgement day. It makes no sense. There would be no judgement day, the non=believers would just go to hell, and the believers would go to heaven. No judgement needed!

 

[Jerry_Marino]

hello friends

what can i say guys, i’ve been away for a while but, what does it mean when Jesus tells peter, "Whoever has bathed has no need except to have his feet washed, for he is clean all over; so you are clean, but not all."John 13:10.

 

[CentralFLJames]

hello friends

what can i say guys, i’ve been away for a while but, what does it mean when Jesus tells peter, "Whoever has bathed has no need except to have his feet washed, for he is clean all over; so you are clean, but not all."John 13:10.

It means that small venial sins need to be cleaned since its hard to avoid stepping in the dust of God’s enemies when doing his works. It also means that bathing is necessary if one falls into grave sin. But there are two kinds of baths - original baptism and sacramental confession for post-baptismal grave sins. These were the kind of sins Judas tried to punish himself for when he killed himself after already being a baptised disciple and did not take to heart that he could be forgiven as Peter did when Peter was forgiven.

Moral of the story - ask to have your whole body cleansed as did Peter if you fall into post-baptismal grave sin. But Peter was our first case of scrupolosity…

James

 

[Lampo]

I’ll confess up front. I haven’t read every page of this thread so if this has been discussed here, I’m sorry.

In John’s Gospel, Jesus tells his Disciples, “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven. Whose sins you retain are retained.” In a OSAS theology, this means a man can keep another man from entering the Kingdom of God. Why? Because of how OSASers interpret this passage. Catholics know that this passage supports the Sacrament of Reconciliation. OSASers say, “No, this passage means that you must confess your sin to the person you sinned against. Not to a priest.” So, the person that is hearing the confession from the person that sinned against him can say, “Sorry Joe, I don’t forgive you for [insert sin].” Therefore his sin is retained; not forgiven. This person now cannot enter into Heaven.

HOW IN THE WORLD DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE???

 

[paul_c]

I’ll confess up front. I haven’t read every page of this thread so if this has been discussed here, I’m sorry.

In John’s Gospel, Jesus tells his Disciples, “Whose sins you forgive are forgiven. Whose sins you retain are retained.” In a OSAS theology, this means a man can keep another man from entering the Kingdom of God. Why? Because of how OSASers interpret this passage. Catholics know that this passage supports the Sacrament of Reconciliation. OSASers say, “No, this passage means that you must confess your sin to the person you sinned against. Not to a priest.” So, the person that is hearing the confession from the person that sinned against him can say, “Sorry Joe, I don’t forgive you for [insert sin].” Therefore his sin is retained; not forgiven. This person now cannot enter into Heaven.

HOW IN THE WORLD DOES THIS MAKE ANY SENSE???

Actually, for most people who believe in OSAS, Sin makes absolulely no difference in Salvation. If their line of thinking, if you have faith in Jesus, he will save you. Period. Nothing you do has an effect after you have acknowledged your faith, even if you apostacize. This is because they beleive salvation is a gift that is not earned and that once you get this gift, it can not be taken away.

The basic problems with this theology are :

1. it renders all moral teaching meaningless since sin doesn’t effect Salvation
2. it would force God to call a sinner, just, which would be asking him to lie.
3. it does not require the OSAS believer to live out their faith.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Actually, for most people who believe in OSAS, Sin makes absolulely no difference in Salvation. If their line of thinking, if you have faith in Jesus, he will save you. Period. Nothing you do has an effect after you have acknowledged your faith, even if you apostacize. This is because they beleive salvation is a gift that is not earned and that once you get this gift, it can not be taken away.

The basic problems with this theology are :

1. it renders all moral teaching meaningless since sin doesn’t effect Salvation
2. it would force God to call a sinner, just, which would be asking him to lie.
3. it does not require the OSAS believer to live out their faith.

But when confronted on these points many of the more agile will try to rationalize and evade the clear contradiction to scripture. These will say something along the lines of “only those who are not of ‘the elect’ continue to sin once they profess Jesus”; or else say ‘they were not truly saved to start with’ (which is in fact true of most all of those subscribing to OSAS).

Another spin in the circuitous reasoning is to imply (but not say it outright) that they are “no longer capable of sin and do not sin” - either as a matter of forensic declaration that sin has no meaning anymore since they are “covered in Christ’s blood” or that they themselves are now ‘Christlike’ (by God’s awesome grace of course) and could never even conceive to sin again in the least. Of course they fail to mention that line of nonsence makes St. John a liar and also an “unsaved”: * ‘If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.’ 1 John 1:10*.

So when pressed, an OSASer will try to convert the argument into a double-predestiny argument (a lingering contagion of Calvinistic thinking) to have one gain justification via pre-destiny rather than by faith; or else just simply declare themselves essentially ‘a slave to God’s grace’ and explain that ‘God can not sin so they can not sin and it might only appear to an unbeliever or unsaved that they sin’. This last angle is quite clever since it ueses what I call the “let he without sin cast the first stone” gambit. That calls any critique of their faith “a sinner and an unsaved” for participating in the judgement of daring to witness to the blatant contradiction that they are murdering the truth. The idea here is to “force the witnesses to the murder” (e.g. the Catholic apologist) to go silent. The rationale is that “with no accuser then there is no crime or sin” (I think Al Capone mastered this one in the secular world ).

Of course it’s all duplicity incarnate. And for some fundamentalist sects, which I won’t bother mentioning, sinning can actually become an expression of faith in God’s grace and can be a great point of fellowship in the “boo-hoo-hoo retreats” to brag about who was/is the greatest sinner in the group as they go around and give their testimonies. This of course encourages embellishments so that the last one giving his testimony can vicariously crow of his conquests in his “past” sinful life by boasting of God’s amazing grace and His ability to save the very worst of us (Hallelujah!).

James

 

[fbl9]

But when confronted on these points many of the more agile will try to rationalize and evade the clear contradiction to scripture. These will say something along the lines of “only those who are not of ‘the elect’ continue to sin once they profess Jesus”; or else say ‘they were not truly saved to start with’ (which is in fact true of most all of those subscribing to OSAS).

Another spin in the circuitous reasoning is to imply (but not say it outright) that they are “no longer capable of sin and do not sin” - either as a matter of forensic declaration that sin has no meaning anymore since they are “covered in Christ’s blood” or that they themselves are now ‘Christlike’ (by God’s awesome grace of course) and could never even conceive to sin again in the least. Of course they fail to mention that line of nonsence makes St. John a liar and also an “unsaved”: * ‘If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.’ 1 John 1:10*.

So when pressed, an OSASer will try to convert the argument into a double-predestiny argument (a lingering contagion of Calvinistic thinking) to have one gain justification via pre-destiny rather than by faith; or else just simply declare themselves essentially ‘a slave to God’s grace’ and explain that ‘God can not sin so they can not sin and it might only appear to an unbeliever or unsaved that they sin’. This last angle is quite clever since it ueses what I call the “let he without sin cast the first stone” gambit. That calls any critique of their faith “a sinner and an unsaved” for participating in the judgement of daring to witness to the blatant contradiction that they are murdering the truth. The idea here is to “force the witnesses to the murder” (e.g. the Catholic apologist) to go silent. The rationale is that “with no accuser then there is no crime or sin” (I think Al Capone mastered this one in the secular world ).

Of course it’s all duplicity incarnate. And for some fundamentalist sects, which I won’t bother mentioning, sinning can actually become an expression of faith in God’s grace and can be a great point of fellowship in the “boo-hoo-hoo retreats” to brag about who was/is the greatest sinner in the group as they go around and give their testimonies. This of course encourages embellishments so that the last one giving his testimony can vicariously crow of his conquests in his “past” sinful life by boasting of God’s amazing grace and His ability to save the very worst of us (Hallelujah!).

James

A bit harsh sounding there James but then again sometimes the truth hurts.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

It means that small venial sins need to be cleaned since its hard to avoid stepping in the dust of God’s enemies when doing his works. It also means that bathing is necessary if one falls into grave sin. But there are two kinds of baths - original baptism and sacramental confession for post-baptismal grave sins. These were the kind of sins Judas tried to punish himself for when he killed himself after already being a baptised disciple and did not take to heart that he could be forgiven as Peter did when Peter was forgiven.

Moral of the story - ask to have your whole body cleansed as did Peter if you fall into post-baptismal grave sin. But Peter was our first case of scrupolosity…

James

Amen.

i disagree only on your take on judas cause this is what Jesus said concerning him, "“Whoever has bathed has no need except to have his feet washed, for he is clean all over; so you are clean, but not all.” For he knew who would betray him; for this reason, he said, "Not all of you are clean."

God bless.

 

[Pax]

Amen.

i disagree only on your take on judas cause this is what Jesus said concerning him, "“Whoever has bathed has no need except to have his feet washed, for he is clean all over; so you are clean, but not all.” For he knew who would betray him; for this reason, he said, "Not all of you are clean."

God bless.

Jerry in Christ,

You shouldn’t pick Judas to support your case. Judas, by protestant doctrinal standards, was saved, and then lost his salvation. I elaborated on this in great detail in an earlier post. That post was never refuted, and so it seems a bit pointless to bring up Judas again in an effort to support OSAS.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Amen.

i disagree only on your take on judas cause this is what Jesus said concerning him, "“Whoever has bathed has no need except to have his feet washed, for he is clean all over; so you are clean, but not all.” For he knew who would betray him; for this reason, he said, "Not all of you are clean."

God bless.

So are you telling us that Protestants don’t take but one bath in their life times whether they need it or not? Ewwwwwww

The only thing you can take from this verse in the way you have presented it without any other prior context is that the apostles were previously bathed but have since gotten their feet dusty by walking around. As this applies as a metaphor for sin it means that the apostles were spiritually bathed (most likely by baptism - which forgives all sin) and have not committed any other grave (whole body) since. But there is more to the dirty feet thing than most people imagine. The very phrase “washing feet” has a subtle meaning in the Hebrew social context with very intimate implications. This probably explains why Peter was so set aback by Christ’s offer until he caught on to what Christ was really doing - installing a priesthood. Let me explain:

Original text here: skellmeyer.blogspot.com/2009/03/holy-thursday-washing-feet.html

Consider Psalm 58:10, “the righteous wash their feet in the blood of the wicked.” Consider too that Christ takes on our sin, He becomes sin for us. The blood of Christ is what empowers the cleansing waters of baptism. So, this verse tells us that washing the apostles’ feet links the angels and the ordination rites of the Old Testament to the ordination established at the Last Supper.

Note that in the OT context, it is interesting to note that King David kills Uriah precisely because Uriah refuses to go down into his house and “wash his feet,” that is, he refuses to have intimate sexual communion with his spouse and thereby cover over David’s adulterous sin with Bathsheba. He refuses on the grounds that the ark of the covenant is in the field with the armies of Israel, and it would not be right to take his ease while Israel is suffering.

Thus, Uriah becomes an interesting foreshadowing of both Christ who is Spouse to us, made adulterous by our sin, and Peter, who refuses to have his feet washed, that is, who refuses to enter into intimate communion with God, out of concern for the propriety of the act. Uriah dies so that the reputation of the King might live, just as Christ died so that the nation might have life. The prophet Nathan reveals the sin of the king just as Peter, in Acts 2, reveals the sin associated with having crucified Christ. David’s first-born son dies, as God’s first-born Son died, but, in a foreshadowing of Christ’s resurrection, the second son from Bathsheba was Solomon, the wisest man in the Old Testament, a king who stood before the ark and offered sacrifice as a priest.

Thus the washing of the feet is no simple demonstration of charity. It is meant to tie together the priesthood of the Old Testament with the visitations from heaven, simultaneously reorienting this new synthesis towards the establishment of Christ’s priesthood of the New Testament.

James

 

[Jerry_Marino]

first of all sins are not washed away by the baptismal waters my friends, our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ.

**John 13: 6 When Jesus came to Simon Peter, Peter said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?”

the spiritual cleansing message that Christ is teaching to us hear is sparked by none other than peter. you have got to love him cause throughout Scripture he is the one who boldly with one breath proclaims Jesus to be the Messiah and then turns defying the Lord. in these scriptures i notice that while Jesus was washing the feet of the others not once did peter stand up to voice his opinion of the Lord doing such an act until the Lord came to him. i see peter as being embarrassed when the Lord came to him. like when God came to the garden calling out to adam who was hiding after disobeying God.

7 Jesus replied, “You don’t understand now what I am doing, but someday you will.”

8 “No,” Peter protested, “you will never ever wash my feet!”

Jesus explain to peter but yet peter’s pride still overwhelms and says what he does here in v. 8 denying the Lord, telling the Lord. when one sins and is convicted by the Holy Spirit one should confess.

Jesus replied, “Unless I wash you, you won’t belong to me.”

Jesus tells why the necessity of the washing and the result of not complying with this washing, no fellowship. 1 John 1:5 This is the message we heard from Jesus and now declare to you: God is light, and there is no darkness in him at all. 6 So we are lying if we say we have fellowship with God but go on living in spiritual darkness; we are not practicing the truth. 7 But if we are living in the light, as God is in the light, then we have fellowship with each other, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, cleanses us from all sin.

9 Simon Peter exclaimed, “Then wash my hands and head as well, Lord, not just my feet!”

peter still at this point did not get the message where he then says to proceed not only with the feet but hands and head as well.

10 Jesus replied, “A person who has bathed all over does not need to wash, except for the feet, to be entirely clean. And you disciples are clean, but not all of you.” 11 For Jesus knew who would betray him. That is what he meant when he said, “Not all of you are clean.”

Jesus tells that we don’t need to bathed again except for the feet, to understand this more thoroughly one need to understand the times in which Christ lived on earth. in these days they would have bath houses apart from where the lived so after the bathed they would walk home. their foot attire were sandals and the conditions of that region was sandy and dusty plus the animals that were in the streets might of left some feces on the ground and walking in the night stepped into it. so upon arriving home they would only need to wash their feet, the same applies in the spiritual realm. we are clean when we have gone to the Cross of Jesus Christ where our sins were paid in full by the blood of Christ. now as we walk on this journey of life we only need to have our feet washed my friends! we don’t need to bath all over. some have said that we must live a perfect life but that is impossible to do my friends as long as we are here in the flesh we will get dirty, check this out:

1 John 1:8 If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth. 9 But if we confess our sins to him, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all wickedness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we are calling God a liar and showing that his word has no place in our hearts.

*Jesus tells them that they are clean but not all, how did they become clean?
in the bible it says that faith comes by hearing, hearing what?
the word of God.

John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the Word which I have spoken unto you.
John 17:17 Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy Word is truth.
Ephesians 5:26 that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word,

so at one time we have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ and believed and we turned from our sins and trusted in Him for our salvation.

Ephesians 1:13 In Christ ye also trusted after ye heard the word of truth, the Gospel of your salvation, in Whom also after ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, 14 which is the pledge of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of His glory.

in this message of feet washing Jesus says, “but not all of you.”

my friends if you have not been bathed all over do so by coming to the Cross of Jesus Christ in the bible it says , that if you believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead and confess with your mouth that Jesus is LORD, you will be saved.

maybe you have come to Cross but have fallen and you go through life out of fellowship with Him, so the call is let Christ wash your feet.***

God bless you all.

 

[SteveGC]

first of all sins are not washed away by the baptismal waters my friends, our sins are washed away by the blood of Christ.

Sins are washed away BY the blood of Christ THROUGH water baptism.

It’s subtle, Jerry…but very significant. The atoning death of Christ (and subsequent resurrection) makes forgiveness of sins possible. But not everyone in the world automatically had their sins forgiven at the moment of Christ’s sacrifice.

Why?

Because one must believe and repent first (assuming we’re talking about adults). And then they must be baptized, because water baptism is the vehicle, or medium if you will, through which the blood sacrifice of Christ cleanses us of sins. So, it IS the blood of Christ…AND it is water baptism (with a believing, repentant heart)…the two in unision, in harmony, that allows sins to be forgiven.

Peace.

 

[TheWhoFreak]

In addition to what SteveGC said, I’d like to point out in 1 Peter:18-21 that Baptism is a modern allegory to Noah’s Ark. Jesus is the Ark and the flood water is the Baptismal/Holy water. In Baptism we are saved by Jesus’s blood THROUGH water, like Noah and his family were saved by the Ark THROUGH water.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

no, but either way in the scripture found in john 13 Jesus said we only need to wash our feet cause we already have been bathed. once that’s all we are already clean.

God bless

 

[paul_c]

no, but either way in the scripture found in john 13 Jesus said we only need to wash our feet cause we already have been bathed. once that’s all we are already clean.

God bless

Jerry, this is a weak argument against baptism when compared to the fact that:

a) Jesus ministry started with his own baptism
b) the disciples of Jesus were baptizing even before the resurrection
c) from the very first convert on Pentecost, th way into the church has always been baptism
Look in Acts 2: 36-39. When the 3000 converts ask what to do, here is the response from St. Peter:
Therefore let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified." Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?” Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, 7 every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”

And what about St. Paul:
Here is his story from Acts 9 1-18
Now Saul, still breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, that, if he should find any men or women who belonged to the Way, he might bring them back to Jerusalem in chains. On his journey, as he was nearing Damascus, a light from the sky suddenly flashed around him . He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” He said, “Who are you, sir?” The reply came, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. Now get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do.” The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him to Damascus.

For three days he was unable to see, and he neither ate nor drank. There was a disciple in Damascus named Ananias, and the Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” He answered, “Here I am, Lord.” The Lord said to him, “Get up and go to the street called Straight and ask at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul. He is there praying, and (in a vision) he has seen a man named Ananias come in and lay (his) hands on him, that he may regain his sight.” But Ananias replied, “Lord, I have heard from many sources about this man, what evil things he has done to your holy ones in Jerusalem.
And here he has authority from the chief priests to imprison all who call upon your name.”
But the Lord said to him, “Go, for this man is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before Gentiles, kings, and Israelites, and I will show him what he will have to suffer for my name.” So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, “Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit.” Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. He got up and **was baptized, **

How can you argue against the need for Baptism when scripture is so clear?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Jerry, this is a weak argument against baptism when compared to the fact that:

a) Jesus ministry started with his own baptism
b) the disciples of Jesus were baptizing even before the resurrection
c) from the very first convert on Pentecost, th way into the church has always been baptism
Look in Acts 2: 36-39. When the 3000 converts ask what to do, here is the response from St. Peter:
Therefore let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified." Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?” Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, 7 every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”

And to those who do not see how baptism replaced circumcision I still can’t comprehend how they don’t see it directly from scripture…

37Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, 7 every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;… ACTS 2:36

*Col 2:11-12
"…in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

Isaiah 53:5 But he was **pierced **for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

John 19:34 "…one of the soldiers** pierced **Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.

Acts 7:51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.*

Clearly God circumcises the heart (“pierced to the heart”) just like Christ was on the cross.

James

 

[TheWhoFreak]

A question for Jerry Marino: Let’s assume that OSAS is true. Let’s also assume that we are saved by Faith Alone, Grace Alone, in Christ Alone (like most Protestants believe). Now, say a person accepts Christ and is saved as a child (age 10-13) and lives a great Christian life for a few years. Would that same person still be saved if they went and became a serial rapist/murderer? What if they started a genocide, would they still be saved because they accepted Christ prior to their awful deeds.

Note: I’ve asked this question before but no one answered it properly. All those who tried thought I asked if they would be saved if they accepted Christ after they did those horrible deeds. I’ll say it again. Would that person still be saved if they had accepted Christ BEFORE doing those terrible things?

 

[Jerry_Marino]

you guys freak me out Scripture is clear on sin my friends as the assurance of salvation, as for catholics you all believe that baptism is the water Jesus speaks of in being born again, now if this is so the same question applies to you freak, a person according to catholicism is baptized therefore is a son of God by being born again but this person continues to sin, what then?

 

[Lampo]

you guys freak me out Scripture is clear on sin my friends as the assurance of salvation, as for catholics you all believe that baptism is the water Jesus speaks of in being born again, now if this is so the same question applies to you freak, a person according to catholicism is baptized therefore is a son of God by being born again but this person continues to sin, what then?

Bad tone = no response.

 

[paul_c]

you guys freak me out Scripture is clear on sin my friends as the assurance of salvation, as for catholics you all believe that baptism is the water Jesus speaks of in being born again, now if this is so the same question applies to you freak, a person according to catholicism is baptized therefore is a son of God by being born again but this person continues to sin, what then?

This is a simple discussion.
In Catholicism, we are saved by grace through faith when we are baptized. However, once saved, we need to stay in the state of Grace by doing God’s will. This means to love God and our neighbor. If we fail to do God’s will and sin, we lose the grace previously given to us. Remember, the wages of sin is death.

To get back in the state of Grace, we need to confess our sins, repent and do penance through the sacrament of reconciliation. If we die in the state of Grace, we go to heaven. However, if we don’t, we will be condemned to hell.