There's no OSAS

[guanophore]

**Yes, we have gotten off topic. Someone got onto a tangent about confession and I guess I took off with it! Sorry about that. [You may grant me absolution now.] **

I made another thread for that. (Not to absolve you, just to discuss)

It is not too far off topic, as the Catholic position is a person in mortal sin will not inherit the Kingdom. There is no dispute between us prior to justification. It is after that where the divergence of teaching occurs. OSAS denies that a person can “fall from grace”, taking the position that, if a person is fallen, they were never in a state of grace (saved) to begin with, is that not so? Where as, Catholicism teaches that a person can enter a state of grace (justified), then fall from that state through mortal sin. Confession, then, is the manner by which we are restored to the purity of initial justification.

 

[Phil12123]

Personally I have no problem conceding that the Bible contains only sketchy references to the items you list above. However, since I do not limit God to the one tiny slice of His revelation that happened to be written down, I don’t have a problem with this.

So, in your mind, the NT is “one tiny slice of His revelation” available to guide the church. If that’s the importance you put on the NT, I can see why you might not be inclined to resort to it “for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” in order for you to be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17). So, to you, the far greater slice of His revelation is some nebulous idea of “tradition” that was not written down and cannot be known other than whatever someone comes up with to support any doctrine he wants to advance?

You see I trust Jesus and I take Him at His Word.

And what is “His Word”? The little we read of what He says in that “tiny slice” which you don’t limit yourself to?

That His Church has been built on Peter.

I guess that is a matter for another thread. Suffice it to say here, though, that Matt. 16:21-23 should convince anyone that His Church was built on Himself as the Christ, the Son of the Living God, not Peter. Otherwise, you have Jesus saying His Church was built on Satan (v.23). Paul confirmed that when he said, “no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Or, even if you use Paul words in Eph. 2:20, it would be “the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone.” The chief consideration or ingredient of the church’s foundation is Christ Himself, not any one apostle. Nowhere in any of his dozen or so epistles do we see Paul bowing to Peter the Pope or honoring him as such. No kissing his ring or seeing any pointy hats or other clerical garb. If Paul were to see the RCC today, he would be appalled at how much the gates of hades have prevailed against it. He would not even recognize Christ’s church in it.

 

[JRKH]

So, in your mind, the NT is “one tiny slice of His revelation” available to guide the church.

Scripture is one piece of a triad of teaching authority. The other two being Sacred Tradition and the Teaching authority of the Church.
However, the most essential piece in the Faith picture is The Word Written in our hearts by the Holy Spirit.

If that’s the importance you put on the NT, I can see why you might not be inclined to resort to it “for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” in order for you to be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Why would you say that?
Scripture is very useful and, indeed, essential to our faith, but you will note that your quote above does not say scripture alone.
In addition, the quote above would not refer to the NT since, at the time there was no such thing. Paul is refering to the OT here. Plus it is useful to note that the NT writers are creating new doctrines and traditions even as they spoke and wrote.
It’s easy to sit here today and declare the Scriptures to be supreme, complete and self contained, but consider this. Someone such as yourself who is wo bible bound, would most certainly have been one of the Jewish Christians who insisted on imposing Mosaic Law upon the new converts. After all, that is “as it is written”.

So, to you, the far greater slice of His revelation is some nebulous idea of “tradition” that was not written down and cannot be known other than whatever someone comes up with to support any doctrine he wants to advance?

The “far greater slice of His Revelation” is not at all nebulous. Certainly Tradition is a part of it, so is Christ’s Personally established Church. These two things along with the spiritual inflowing and teaching of the Holy Spirit on a daily/hourly basis contain so much more than just what is contained in the Bible. This is far better than some “nebulous” idea that any book written in the tongues of man, can contain the fullness of God and His revelation to Man.

Originally Posted by JRKH
You see I trust Jesus and I take Him at His Word.

And what is “His Word”? The little we read of what He says in that “tiny slice” which you don’t limit yourself to?
I guess that is a matter for another thread.

This is something that a Sola Scriptura person just cannot understand. That Jesus established a CHURCH, and not an invisible one either. He established a Church which speaks for Him. A Church that feeds His sheep. A Church that He declared he would not abandon. A Church to which He gave authority. Add to that the promise of sending the Holy Spirit to guide us.
In all of these promises, isn’t it interesting that he never mentioned a book?

Suffice it to say here, though, that Matt. 16:21-23 should convince anyone that His Church was built on Himself as the Christ, the Son of the Living God, not Peter.

Thou art Rock (Peter) and upon this Rock I will build my Church. Yep, pretty clear to me.

Otherwise, you have Jesus saying His Church was built on Satan (v.23). Paul confirmed that when he said, “no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Or, even if you use Paul words in Eph. 2:20, it would be “the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone.” The chief consideration or ingredient of the church’s foundation is Christ Himself, not any one apostle. Nowhere in any of his dozen or so epistles do we see Paul bowing to Peter the Pope or honoring him as such. No kissing his ring or seeing any pointy hats or other clerical garb.

In none of the above do you prove a case for Sola Scriptura.
Of course Jesus is the cornerstone!! But every cornerstone has a building on it!! Not a “virual reality” building, but a solidly constructed very real and solid building. Thus is Christ’s Church.

If Paul were to see the RCC today, he would be appalled at how much the gates of hades have prevailed against it. He would not even recognize Christ’s church in it.

So now you are calling Jesus a liar since He promised that this would not happen.
I’m sorry for having to put it that way, but your statement is just too patently false for any other, softer, response.
Can’t you see that you are taking a single piece of Christianity, the Bible, that wasn’t even available for the first 400 years, and trying to say this is the be all and end all of Christian Truth? Limiting God to only that which was written down and ignoring all that went on before, during, and around it and after the books were written, as well as the great blessings of the Holy Spirit.
Sola Scripturists talk loudly of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but then they limit and undercut that Spirit by insisting on checking everything against “The Word” written on a page instead of “The Word” written on the heart.

Peace
James

 

[Ronald_E]

James, I was just reading your response to Phil and it hit me that, in the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus tells us how to pray. One line reads, “…Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven…”
From Jesus’ Words He tells us that the structure of the Kingdom of God on earth is to be like the structure in Heaven.
There is to be one leader on earth who as God is in Heaven. We are to be united under that one leader, etc.

 

[The_GreyPilgrim]

So, in your mind, the NT is “one tiny slice of His revelation” available to guide the church. If that’s the importance you put on the NT, I can see why you might not be inclined to resort to it “for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,” in order for you to be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17). So, to you, the far greater slice of His revelation is some nebulous idea of “tradition” that was not written down and cannot be known other than whatever someone comes up with to support any doctrine he wants to advance?

And what is “His Word”? The little we read of what He says in that “tiny slice” which you don’t limit yourself to?

I guess that is a matter for another thread. Suffice it to say here, though, that Matt. 16:21-23 should convince anyone that His Church was built on Himself as the Christ, the Son of the Living God, not Peter. Otherwise, you have Jesus saying His Church was built on Satan (v.23). Paul confirmed that when he said, “no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Or, even if you use Paul words in Eph. 2:20, it would be “the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone.” The chief consideration or ingredient of the church’s foundation is Christ Himself, not any one apostle. Nowhere in any of his dozen or so epistles do we see Paul bowing to Peter the Pope or honoring him as such. No kissing his ring or seeing any pointy hats or other clerical garb. If Paul were to see the RCC today, he would be appalled at how much the gates of hades have prevailed against it. He would not even recognize Christ’s church in it.

Acts 15:[7] And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

So if what you say is true how do you explain this verse from scripture?

 

[JRKH]

James, I was just reading your response to Phil and it hit me that, in the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus tells us how to pray. One line reads, “…Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven…”
From Jesus’ Words He tells us that the structure of the Kingdom of God on earth is to be like the structure in Heaven.
There is to be one leader on earth who as God is in Heaven. We are to be united under that one leader, etc.

As well we are united under one leader - Christ our Lord. Christ the King of His Kingdom.
The thing that most NC’s miss is that Kings would often apoint Stewards to govern their kingdoms. These stewards were given great power and leeway to act in the King’s name while the King Himself was not physically present.
The King’s steward would be given the 'Keys" to the kingdom and what he opened was opened and what he shut remained shut until the king’s return.
Look at Joseph in Egypt as an example.
This is all that Jesus did when He appointed Peter to head the Church. He appointed a Steward. We call it a Vicar. When the origional Steward died, and the King had not returned yet, a new Steward was selected. The method of selection may have changed, and not all selections have been good ones, but the office of Steward to the King has always been occupied.

I had an addtional thought last night as well. The three foundational sources of the Church act very much like the three branches of our government in the US. In the Church it is Scripture, Magesterium, Seat of Peter, in the Government it is the Law, The Congress and the Executive. The purpose of each is to counterbalance the others. Remove any of these three and the balance is lost.

The great thing about our republic is that we have recognized and respected the authority of the Constitution and the law. Just as the Church has always respected and upheld the vital importance of scripture. However our republic is not a slave to the law. Great volumes of information, opinions, case studies, historical treatises etc. give us insight into what and how and why the laws exist the way they do, and how they were intended to be implemented. The Church also has this great treasure of historical documents and evidence to help her govern and interpret and properly apply the great truths of scripture. Unfortunately those who believe in Scripture alone do not have this and spiritual anarchy is the result.

Catholics would be the last ones to say that the Church is perfect. But it is precisely that imperfection that has made it so valuable and remarkable. The Church has stood the test of time, not by her perfection, but by her remarkable, self correcting structure. By the fact that systems within the Church are constantly working to corrrect imbalances, all under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I have started another thread to discuss the Bible as connected to the Church since we are getting somewhat off topic here.

The new thread is HERE

 

[JRKH]

I am currently reading the Book “Four Witnesses” and ran across this quote from the Didache:

CHAPTER 16
Warning that the end is at hand

1 “Watch” over your life: “let your lamps” be not quenched “and your loins” be not ungirded, but be “ready,” for ye know not “the hour in which our Lord cometh.” 2 But be frequently gathered together seeking the things which are profitable for your souls, for the whole time of your faith shall not profit you except ye be found perfect at the last time;

Here is the Web Text

It certainly appears to me that the earliest Christian Church was NOT teaching OSAS by this quote, and this “catachism” is dated from the 1st century, around 50-120 AD According to this website

Peace
James

 

[AgnosTheist]

There is no OSAS because Lucifer was already saved and yet he still went to hell.

 

[distracted]

As true as the above is, in all fairness I’ve known Catholics who act just the same way. They seem to think that, so long as they go to church (and not even every week), they are still a “good catholic” regardless of how they act otherwise.

Peace
James

True… and i believe probably the biggest reason for that is that they are affected by the mostly-Protestant society they live in… Monkey see-Monkey do… This world has become Protestantized… As the Scriptures say, “The devil is coming down hard on the world for he knows he has but a short time…”

(Sorry if that is too paraphrased)

 

[distracted]

There is no OSAS because Lucifer was already saved and yet he still went to hell.

…interesting point…

 

[distracted]

. It seems to be linked with the founding principles of the country in individuality and freedom. “I can do as I please” is a common misunderstanding of the Constitution.

amen… so true… Liberty has become a god… (false liberty, i should say)…

There is bigotry on both sides of the OSAS arguement. I have just bumped heads on another thread with a Catholic like what you describe here. Bigotry is no respecter of faith traditions.

True… I know catholics who think they can go to Church and that is that… or so it seems (i don’t want to judge another’s heart/motives, which only God knows… but the Scriptures say You will know them by their fruits…).

 

[Phil12123]

There is no OSAS because Lucifer was already saved and yet he still went to hell.

1. He was never “saved” as that term is being used here, and
2. He is not yet in hell, though you are correct that he will ultimately be there (Rev. 20:10).

 

[Phil12123]

I am currently reading the Book “Four Witnesses” and ran across this quote from the Didache:

CHAPTER 16
Warning that the end is at hand

The problem with this quote is that it does not elaborate on what the writer(s) meant by “perfect.” Does it mean sinless? No one is that, not in their walk. Does it mean “mature” as that word sometimes means in the NT? Again, who is that? Jesus said that they were to be “perfect” as their Heavenly Father is perfect. He certainly is sinless. IMHO, He was setting the bar and the standard of sinlessness as the mark that “all have sinned and fallen short of” (Rom. 3:23), so that everyone would see and understand that they were sinners in need of Him as Savior. The Pharisees thought they were righteous by their outward obedience to the Law and so He extended it to show how sinful they were in their hearts (anger = murder, lust = adultery, etc.). To cap it all off, He set “perfect” as a standard everyone should realize they are NOT, and therefore they are sinners who need a Savior.

 

[Rocky]

I haven’t read the whole thread here, so this may have already been discussed. If so, please refer me to the posts.

But how do those who believe in OSAS interpret Acts 5 with the story of Ananias and Sapphira? They obviously must have been believers because they were part of the community. But they died because of their sin. (I think that even though the story of Saul/Paul is later in Acts, I once heard something about this man was the same Ananias that Saul went to to be healed and who baptized him.)

 

[guanophore]

**The problem with this quote is that it does not elaborate on what the writer(s) meant by “perfect.” **

I think he is quite clear. The Didache opens with a description of “The Two Ways”. One is the way of following the commandments of Christ, the other is the way of death.

 

[guanophore]

I haven’t read the whole thread here, so this may have already been discussed. If so, please refer me to the posts.

But how do those who believe in OSAS interpret Acts 5 with the story of Ananias and Sapphira? They obviously must have been believers because they were part of the community. But they died because of their sin. (I think that even though the story of Saul/Paul is later in Acts, I once heard something about this man was the same Ananias that Saul went to to be healed and who baptized him.)

I agree that they were members of the Christian community who fell from grace.

However, the Ananias could not be the same one. Saul was called some years after this happened, and the Ananias that came to him was from Damascus.

 

[Phil12123]

I think he is quite clear. The Didache opens with a description of “The Two Ways”. One is the way of following the commandments of Christ, the other is the way of death.

So, you think if you “follow the comandments of Christ” you are perfect? Are YOU perfect right now yourself? I’ve never met someone who thought they were perfect. “Quite clear”? Then he is clearly wrong.

 

[Phil12123]

I haven’t read the whole thread here, so this may have already been discussed. If so, please refer me to the posts.

But how do those who believe in OSAS interpret Acts 5 with the story of Ananias and Sapphira? They obviously must have been believers because they were part of the community. But they died because of their sin.

This was mentioned in Post No. 424, back on page 29, which was not replied to. I will give it a try. Let’s look at the whole passage, including the context from earlier verses:

**Acts 4:
32. Now the multitude of *those who believed *were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common.
33. And with great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And great grace was upon them all.
34. Nor was there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold,
35. and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.
36. And Joses, who was also named Barnabas by the apostles (which is translated Son of Encouragement), a Levite of the country of Cyprus,
37. having land, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
Acts 5:

1. But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession.
2. And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
3. But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself?
4. *"While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.’’ *
5. Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things.
6. And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him.
7. Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened.
8. And Peter answered her, "Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?’’ And she said, *"Yes, for so much.’’ *
9. Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.”
10. Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband.
11. So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things. **

**The first thing I notice is that Peter did not ask Ananias what he sold the land for, as he did with the wife, Sapphira. And Peter said that even after he sold it, Ananias didn’t have to give the entire price received to the Apostles (“after it was sold, was it not in your own control?”). But for Peter to make an issue of it, Ananias must have represented in some way that the amount he gave to him was the entire amount received for it, which was not the case. Nevertheless, Peter’s judgment that Satan had filled the man’s heart to lie to God seems a little harsh, since he didn’t really have to give any of the price to the apostles. Why lie about it at all?–just keep part of it and tell Peter about it and that Peter could have the rest for distribution to those in need. He didn’t do that, perhaps to be seen by the other believers as especially generous, like Barnabas, or perhaps because he didn’t know he didn’t have to give the entire amount received.

In any event, the passage does not say what happened to A & S after they died. IMHO, if A & S were saved, they died physically and went to heaven prematurely. Believers don’t get to heaven by not lying, nor do they go to hell for lying if they’ve been saved; Jesus died for that sin as surely as all their others. This is not to say believers should make a practice of lying or committing any other sin, but nevertheless their sins have been paid for by the blood of Christ, Who also is making intercession for them when they do sin (1 John 2:1). He is our Advocate, our Lawyer, Who has not lost a case in His representation of believers before the Bar of God.**

 

[JRKH]

The problem with this quote is that it does not elaborate on what the writer(s) meant by “perfect.” Does it mean sinless? No one is that, not in their walk. Does it mean “mature” as that word sometimes means in the NT? Again, who is that? Jesus said that they were to be “perfect” as their Heavenly Father is perfect. He certainly is sinless. IMHO, He was setting the bar and the standard of sinlessness as the mark that “all have sinned and fallen short of” (Rom. 3:23), so that everyone would see and understand that they were sinners in need of Him as Savior. The Pharisees thought they were righteous by their outward obedience to the Law and so He extended it to show how sinful they were in their hearts (anger = murder, lust = adultery, etc.). To cap it all off, He set “perfect” as a standard everyone should realize they are NOT, and therefore they are sinners who need a Savior.

There is no doubt but that Our Lord set the Bar High - Too High even, but I believe he did that specifically because he didn’t want us to become complacent.
That said, the quote does clearly show that effort and improvement is expected right up until the end or else “the whole time of your faith shall not profit you”. This shows clearly that, from the earliest times, the Church taught that Salvation could be lost.

Peace
James