Protestants who accept OSAS: How do you explain these scriptures?

[Prodigal_Son1]

So… There is no new divine nature that is imparted to a believer according to you.

I guess maybe you can’t see the divine nature through the scriptures provided. It might be a problem of private interpretations.

I already said that the old nature still exists in a believer along with the new nature.

Is this your answer to my question about born-again Christians not sinning? If so, please explain the implications of those sins.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[JonNC]

but then why should anyone be surprised… it comes from the heretic Luther…

Goodness, distracted. None of this comes from Luther. This wouldn’t even be a good misiterpretation of Luther.

Jon

 

[brkn1]

I guess maybe you can’t see the divine nature through the scriptures provided. It might be a problem of private interpretations.

Are you saying that you agree with me about there being two natures (the “old man” and the “new creature”) after a person is born again?

Is this your answer to my question about born-again Christians not sinning? If so, please explain the implications of those sins.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

There is still a sin-nature that remains with a born again person after the divine nature is added to him as part of the new birth quickening from dead in our sins to eternal life.
The tendency to sin caused by Adam’s original sin is not eliminated until physical death.
The new nature gives a born again person the power to fight and control the old nature, but not eliminate it. There is always a battle between the two natures. Sin results from any failure in that battle.
This battle explains how John can say two things that seem completely opposite in (1 John 1:8) and (1 John 3:9).

(1 John 1:8) “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”
John is talking about saved persons here. All others can only sin, even if their deeds seem good, since their motivation to do good deeds is wrong.

(1 John 3:9) “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”
This opposite declaration could not make sense, unless we understood that John is speaking about the fact that we are now (presently) the “sons of God” (1 John 3:2) as born again believers. That new divine nature in us can not sin and can not be lost or corrupted. All of a born again person’s sins have been cleansed by the blood of Christ. The continued cleansing from sin that we do as we make mistakes is for fellowship with God and other believers, that our joy might be full.
If we allow the old nature to have power over us, the Father will chastise us severely as any good father would do with his children. We do not lose our salvation or born again position in Christ when we sin, as some claim. That does not mean that there is no penalty for sinning though and there is no free ticket to just sin afterwards as some assume. Sin does not satisfy a true born again believer either.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Are you saying that you agree with me about there being two natures (the “old man” and the “new creature”) after a person is born again?

There is still a sin-nature that remains with a born again person after the divine nature is added to him as part of the new birth quickening from dead in our sins to eternal life.
The tendency to sin caused by Adam’s original sin is not eliminated until physical death.
The new nature gives a born again person the power to fight and control the old nature, but not eliminate it. There is always a battle between the two natures. Sin results from any failure in that battle.
This battle explains how John can say two things that seem completely opposite in (1 John 1:8) and (1 John 3:9).

(1 John 1:8) “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”
John is talking about saved persons here. All others can only sin, even if their deeds seem good, since their motivation to do good deeds is wrong.

(1 John 3:9) “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.”
This opposite declaration could not make sense, unless we understood that John is speaking about the fact that we are now (presently) the “sons of God” (1 John 3:2) as born again believers. That new divine nature in us can not sin and can not be lost or corrupted. All of a born again person’s sins have been cleansed by the blood of Christ. The continued cleansing from sin that we do as we make mistakes is for fellowship with God and other believers, that our joy might be full.
If we allow the old nature to have power over us, the Father will chastise us severely as any good father would do with his children. We do not lose our salvation or born again position in Christ when we sin, as some claim. That does not mean that there is no penalty for sinning though and there is no free ticket to just sin afterwards as some assume. Sin does not satisfy a true born again believer either.

I just returned from Mass, where I received the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

I’ll be honest, I really don’t know about, nor have I ever heard about, the “old man” sin that you keep referring too.

Again you say the Father will chastise us, again I ask what do you mean by chastisement and when does the chastisement take place? It sure sounds very close to purgatory to me.

So if a person is truly saved once, and overtime they backslide as protestants call it, they will still go to heaven? That’s what it sounds like that you’re saying and that sounds alot like a free ticket to me.

It seems you’re contradicting your previous statements that a born again Christian that sins was never born again to begin with. I take that to mean, they were never born again or saved to begin with and therefore would be doomed to eternal damnation. Now it seems you say there is a chastisement?

Maybe once saved always saved is a lot more complicated than we thought it was?

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[TriuneUnity]

Prodigal Son1:

It seems you’re contradicting your previous statements that a born again Christian that sins was never born again to begin with. I take that to mean, they were never born again or saved to begin with and therefore would be doomed to eternal damnation. Now it seems you say there is a chastisement?

Maybe once saved always saved is a lot more complicated than we thought it was?

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

This is a serious problem with the anabaptist notion of “once saved, always saved.” If a person who falls away from the faith was never “saved” to begin with how is anyone to know they’re saved? Can I predict that 10 years from now I will not commit some grievous act that proves I was never saved?

Ultimately, such a position is a faith in faith position. “I have faith that my faith has justified me, therefore, I know I am born again.”

It is a horrible conundrum that throws the sinner back on himself to rely on his salvation. Rather than what Christ has done for him.

 

[mozart-250]

This is a serious problem with the anabaptist notion of “once saved, always saved.”

Anabaptist?

Now I am open to learning something new, but I have never heard of “once saved, always saved” being associated with the Anabaptists of the time of Luther and a little later. Neither have I heard it being associated with their descendants, the Mennonites and similar groups.

I do know that many Baptists believe in “once saved, always saved”. Furthermore I know some Baptists claim to have descended from the Mennonites, However, from what I have read this is “Trail of Blood” history and inaccurate.

From my understanding, OSAS originated with John Calvin, who was definitely not Anabaptist.

But maybe my historical understanding is not correct.

But having defended the Anabaptists and their true descendants, back your OSAS debate.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Anabaptist?

Now I am open to learning something new, but I have never heard of “once saved, always saved” being associated with the Anabaptists of the time of Luther and a little later. Neither have I heard it being associated with their descendants, the Mennonites and similar groups.

I do know that many Baptists believe in “once saved, always saved”. Furthermore I know some Baptists claim to have descended from the Mennonites, However, from what I have read this is “Trail of Blood” history and inaccurate.

From my understanding, OSAS originated with John Calvin, who was definitely not Anabaptist.

But maybe my historical understanding is not correct.

But having defended the Anabaptists and their true descendants, back your OSAS debate.

I think you need to consider your attempt to defend the Anabaptists within your own heart and then see a priest for confession and absolution :tsktsk:

Seriously, though; the Anabaptists in Germany at the time of the Reformation and prior to the ascendency of Calvinistic Christianity did teach once saved always saved; Not every individual enthusiast group may have done so. If you read Luther’s writings he will always address the once saved always saved argument in an anti-anabaptist direction (since obviously Rome wasn’t teaching it!)

The Calvinists did teach the same…but it developed outside the the context of anabaptism. Needless to say, whether anabaptist or Calvinist, it’s still wrong.

 

[mozart-250]

I think you need to consider your attempt to defend the Anabaptists within your own heart and then see a priest for confession and absolution :tsktsk:

Seriously, though; the Anabaptists in Germany at the time of the Reformation and prior to the ascendency of Calvinistic Christianity did teach once saved always saved;

I do like the Anabaptists.

However I like the strain that includes names like Felix Manz and Michael Sattler (martyrs who were burnt and drowned by both Catholics and Protestants) and that eventually become the Mennonites.

I actually spent a while studying these anabaptists that became the Mennonites, and I never once encountered “Once saved always saved”.

I have read that there are groups that claim to be anabaptists that the Mennonites do not consider part of their heritage. And I have read some debates on just what is and is not Anabaptist.

Sheesh, I have even read some sources that claim Michael Servetus (the guy that John Calvin burnt) was an anabaptist even though his beliefs were…well heretical (that is absolutely no excuse for John Calvin frying him though…Calvin apologists notwithstanding). So I guess we need a consensus on what is and is not an Anabaptist.

Anyway, do I know for sure that there might not be a group out there that claims the Anabaptist label and believes “Once saved always saved”? Nope I do not.

However, I just googled the subject again and found no anabaptist or Mennonite sources concuring with “Once saved always saved” and several disagreeing with it. But maybe there is a source out there I am not familiar with. Admittedly, I am totally armchair on this.

But anyway, back to your debate. I have said enough here.

Edit the more I think about it the more this boils down to a lack of consensus on what exactly is an Anabaptist. My reading was primarily through Mennonite sources which had a narrower definition (excluding Michael Servetus for example). However, once I came across a Lutheran source which was less sympathetic and had a broader definition of Anabaptist (that did include Michael Servetus amongst others). So it depends whose spin you are sympathetic towards I suppose.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I do like the Anabaptists.

However I like the strain that includes names like Felix Manz and Michael Sattler (martyrs who were burnt and drowned by both Catholics and Protestants) and that eventually become the Mennonites.

I actually spent a while studying these anabaptists that became the Mennonites, and I never once encountered “Once saved always saved”.

Mennonites, though, are one distinct group of Anabaptists. They may or may not be related to any of the more fringe groups that existed during the time of Luther’s preaching. (I’m not too familiar with their history)

I have read that there are groups that claim to be anabaptists that the Mennonites do not consider part of their heritage. And I have read some debates on just what is and is not Anabaptist.

Sheesh, I have even read some sources that claim Michael Servetus (the guy that John Calvin burnt) was an anabaptist even though his beliefs were…well heretical (that is absolutely no excuse for John Calvin frying him though…Calvin apologists notwithstanding). So I guess we need a consensus on what is and is not an Anabaptist.

Other than the rebaptism issue…the Anabaptists were all over the place theologically. Some were orthodox on the vast majority of Christian doctrines; some were proto-charismatics, some were anti-Trinitarians. It depended typically on what preacher they followed.

The teaching, of course, is now relegated to the Calvinistic churches and their Arminian offshoots.

 

[mozart-250]

Mennonites, though, are one distinct group of Anabaptists. They may or may not be related to any of the more fringe groups that existed during the time of Luther’s preaching. (I’m not too familiar with their history)

Other than the rebaptism issue…the Anabaptists were all over the place theologically. Some were orthodox on the vast majority of Christian doctrines; some were proto-charismatics, some were anti-Trinitarians. It depended typically on what preacher they followed.

The teaching, of course, is now relegated to the Calvinistic churches and their Arminian offshoots.

I’ll put my previous edit on my previous post here, having given this issue some more thought.

Edit: the more I think about it the more this seems to boil down to a lack of consensus on what exactly is an Anabaptist. My reading was primarily through Mennonite sources which had a narrower definition of Anabaptist (excluding Michael Servetus for example). However, once I came across a Lutheran source which was less sympathetic towards Anabaptists and had a broader definition of of the word (that did include Michael Servetus amongst others). So it depends whose spin you are sympathetic towards I suppose. And I guess I am sympathetic towards the Mennonite spin (I’m sympathetic towards the underdog and these folks were being killed like flies by both Catholics and Protestants in that time period)

 

[brkn1]

I just returned from Mass, where I received the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

I’ll be honest, I really don’t know about, nor have I ever heard about, the “old man” sin that you keep referring too.

Again you say the Father will chastise us, again I ask what do you mean by chastisement and when does the chastisement take place? It sure sounds very close to purgatory to me.

So if a person is truly saved once, and overtime they backslide as protestants call it, they will still go to heaven? That’s what it sounds like that you’re saying and that sounds alot like a free ticket to me.

It seems you’re contradicting your previous statements that a born again Christian that sins was never born again to begin with. I take that to mean, they were never born again or saved to begin with and therefore would be doomed to eternal damnation. Now it seems you say there is a chastisement?

Maybe once saved always saved is a lot more complicated than we thought it was?

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

The “old man” nature is the original sin-nature that we all inherited from Adam. All who die with only that nature are condemned.

The “new man” or “new creature” nature, that only a spiritually born again person receives, is the divine nature that comes from true faith in Jesus Christ and what He did to redeem us. It does not replace, but exists alongside the original sin-nature that all are physically born with.

A good verse to define this might be found in (1 Corinthians 15:22): “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all (true born again believers) be made alive.”

How do you define what is meant by being “born again”?
When does it happen and can it be lost? Thanks.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The “old man” nature is the original sin-nature that we all inherited from Adam. All who die with only that nature are condemned.

The “new man” or “new creature” nature, that only a spiritually born again person receives, is the divine nature that comes from true faith in Jesus Christ and what He did to redeem us. It does not replace, but exists alongside the original sin-nature that all are physically born with.

A good verse to define this might be found in (1 Corinthians 15:22): “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all (true born again believers) be made alive.”

How do you define what is meant by being “born again”?
When does it happen and can it be lost? Thanks.

Are you referring to what you’ve added to the scripture above? I have 16 versions of the Bible and none of them say true born again believers as you’ve stated. I know some protestants say born again, some say saved. Catholics accept Jesus’ death was for our sins. We also believe that once you have faith, there are other obligations or works, if you will, that you must see through until the end or persevere if you prefer.

I’ve heard protestants say it happens when they accept Jesus. I’ve already provided scriptures that warn against falling from grace, so yes I believe it can be lost. You’ve said, if a person were truly saved they wouldn’t sin and if they did sin they really weren’t saved to begin with. Then you said the Father would chastise those who sin after being saved. This appears to be a contradiction to me. Which is it?

Now, even though you avoided answering my questions by using questions as answers, I answered your questions honestly to the best of my ability. I am posting my questions again and bolding them below to give you the same opportunity (if you really want to be taken seriously).

Again you say the Father will chastise us, again I ask what do you mean by chastisement and when does the chastisement take place? It sure sounds very close to purgatory to me.

So if a person is truly saved once, and overtime they backslide as protestants call it, they will still go to heaven? That’s what it sounds like that you’re saying and that sounds alot like a free ticket to me.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[brkn1]

I just returned from Mass, where I received the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ.

I’ll be honest, I really don’t know about, nor have I ever heard about, the “old man” sin that you keep referring too.

Again you say the Father will chastise us, again I ask what do you mean by chastisement and when does the chastisement take place? It sure sounds very close to purgatory to me.

The chastisement happens on earth when a child of God sins.
It can not be the same thing as “purgatory”, since that is what the RCC claims happens after death.

So if a person is truly saved once, and overtime they backslide as protestants call it, they will still go to heaven? That’s what it sounds like that you’re saying and that sounds alot like a free ticket to me.

It seems you’re contradicting your previous statements that a born again Christian that sins was never born again to begin with. I take that to mean, they were never born again or saved to begin with and therefore would be doomed to eternal damnation. Now it seems you say there is a chastisement?

A born again person will still sin, but this does not make that person lose his salvation. The Father will punish a child of His who does not repent, as He did with David. He may even take that child home through death.

A born again person has a new nature that gives him the ability to resist the old nature that still exists, even after he is saved. There is a war within that Paul spoke of in some of his epistles.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The chastisement happens on earth when a child of God sins.
It can not be the same thing as “purgatory”, since that is what the RCC claims happens after death.

A born again person will still sin, but this does not make that person lose his salvation. The Father will punish a child of His who does not repent, as He did with David. He may even take that child home through death.

I know the story of David you mention. Do you think it possible that this story demonstrates the different degrees of sins? David’s sin was not serious enough for David to lose his salvation because he repented, but the debt had to be paid so God took David’s child instead, which was in a way was a purgation of David’s sin.

A born again person has a new nature that gives him the ability to resist the old nature that still exists, even after he is saved. There is a war within that Paul spoke of in some of his epistles.

Where does the, “that person was never really saved to begin with”, play into all this? How can those who claim to be saved be assured they are really saved to begin with?

If one cannot lose his salvation once saved, please tell me what St. Paul meant in his letter to the Hebrews. (See below)

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins:
Heb 10:27 But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries.

Seems pretty clear that sinning after having knowledge, or faith, there is no sacrifice left for sins, instead a certain judgment where the fire shall consume them.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[brkn1]

I know the story of David you mention. Do you think it possible that this story demonstrates the different degrees of sins? David’s sin was not serious enough for David to lose his salvation because he repented, but the debt had to be paid so God took David’s child instead, which was in a way was a purgation of David’s sin.

So deliberate murder and adultery were not serious sins?
David’s child had to pay the price to “purge” David’s sin?
“Purgation” that happens on earth is NOT the same thing that the RCC is talking about when it describes “purgatory”.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So deliberate murder and adultery were not serious sins?
David’s child had to pay the price to “purge” David’s sin?
“Purgation” that happens on earth is NOT the same thing that the RCC is talking about when it describes “purgatory”.

Serious sins with serious consequences, yet David did not lose his salvation. One has to assume, God saw David’s loss of his son as the price to pay the debt owed. While it might have been a stretch to use the word purgation, it still shows different degrees of sins in God’s eyes. What would the debt had been if David had merely been angered or prideful instead? Would God have taken his child still? Since David’s sins were mortal sins the debt appears to have been death, or a sacrifice of David’s child. Remember, this happened way before Christ was the sacrifice for sins and God didn’t command David to offer up sacrifices.

Also, please revisited my last post. You responded as I was editing.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[brkn1]

Serious sins with serious consequences, yet David did not lose his salvation. One has to assume, God saw David’s loss of his son as the price to pay the debt owed. While it might have been a stretch to use the word purgation, it still shows different degrees of sins in God’s eyes. What would the debt had been if David had merely been angered or prideful instead? Would God have taken his child still? Since David’s sins were mortal sins the debt appears to have been death, or a sacrifice of David’s child. Remember, this happened way before Christ was the sacrifice for sins and God didn’t command David to offer up sacrifices.

Also, please revisited my last post. You responded as I was editing.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

Christ died for David’s sins also. David spoke of this in his psalms. All of the OT sacrifices pointed to the yet-to-come Redeemer.

The death of David’s child was not a payment for David’s sin, although it might have been a result of that sin. A result should not be confused with a payment when referring to sin debt.

 

[brkn1]

Where does the, “that person was never really saved to begin with”, play into all this? How can those who claim to be saved be assured they are really saved to begin with?

If one cannot lose his salvation once saved, please tell me what St. Paul meant in his letter to the Hebrews. (See below)

Seems pretty clear that sinning after having knowledge, or faith, there is no sacrifice left for sins, instead a certain judgment where the fire shall consume them.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

If your interpretation were correct, then no one could be saved. We all sin, as Paul pointed out in his epistles.
These verses are not speaking about what you seem to understand them to be. I do not want to waste time explaining the context and what Paul was driving at when he spoke to the Hebrews that also wanted to go back to the Jewish rituals, which no longer were valid.

 

[brkn1]

Are you referring to what you’ve added to the scripture above? I have 16 versions of the Bible and none of them say true born again believers as you’ve stated. I know some protestants say born again, some say saved.

I was just making clear what “all” was referring to, when I added those words in parenthesis.

Catholics accept Jesus’ death was for our sins. We also believe that once you have faith, there are other obligations or works, if you will, that you must see through until the end or persevere if you prefer.

This is my understanding of Catholic salvation:
Catholics do not accept Jesus’ death as sufficient, in itself, for the salvation of a believer in Jesus Christ. They also require works and do not consider being “born again” as being the same thing as being saved. Being saved is not a certain thing for Catholics. They can not rest completely on Jesus and His redeeming sacrifice for salvation. They must also depend on the RCC and their own works to possibly earn salvation after persevering until the end.

Can any Catholic here give me a straight answer on exactly what Jesus meant when He said you must be born again?

 

[GailMac]

Here’s the question: “Can any Catholic here give me a straight answer on exactly what Jesus meant when He said you must be born again?” Soooooooo…

I’ll give it a whack - how about this for an answer - unless you be born again by water and spirit you will not enter the kingdom…this is the Sacrament of Baptism. Each Sacrament is an encounter with the living God, and so His Triune Nature is there, Father Son and Holy Spirit. The is no division in Him. Where One is All are. When we receive the Sacrament of Baptism, whether as a child or adult, we are born again into His Kingdom. That is why we teach that Baptism is a Sacrament of initiation - it initiates the recipient into Christ and he or she is born again as a Christian. It begins a person’s life in Christ. But this is only the beginning. Life gets lived afterwards and God knowing we would need help to continue to the end gave us another Sacrament for this - Confession whereby we are also “born again” by having our sins Absolved through the life giving Spirit present in the Sacrament. Get it?

Peace,

Gail