What happens to sinners is OSAS scenario?

[kalt]

I posted this question in another thread, but the OP didn’t respond. Hoping that someone will answer it here.

"But with all due respect, and to be fair…

The OP = These same annoying things come from Catholics on this board also, and are directed toward Protestant visitors. Quick example…OSAS, whether you believe in it or not (I don’t, and I know Catholics don’t), in no way does it mean one can sin all he/she wants to and everything gets pushed under the rug because of OSAS.

My question = Here’s your chance to clear up that misconception. A man is born again. He lives a good life for decades after being born again. At some point, for some reason, he loses his way. He robs a bank and kills the teller and the bank manager. What happens to this person if he is unrepentant for this sin until death–he dies unrepentant for the sin he commited-- never asks God for forgiveness? (We can’t know that he died unrepentant, but God can. So we will say that God knows he died unrepentant.)"

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I posted this question in another thread, but the OP didn’t respond. Hoping that someone will answer it here.

"But with all due respect, and to be fair…

The OP = These same annoying things come from Catholics on this board also, and are directed toward Protestant visitors. Quick example…OSAS, whether you believe in it or not (I don’t, and I know Catholics don’t), in no way does it mean one can sin all he/she wants to and everything gets pushed under the rug because of OSAS.

My question = Here’s your chance to clear up that misconception. A man is born again. He lives a good life for decades after being born again. At some point, for some reason, he loses his way. He robs a bank and kills the teller and the bank manager. What happens to this person if he is unrepentant for this sin until death–he dies unrepentant for the sin he commited-- never asks God for forgiveness? (We can’t know that he died unrepentant, but God can. So we will say that God knows he died unrepentant.)"

That is like saying that someone can receive the grace of final perseverance, yet be damned. The problem is a phantom; it can be formulated (you’ve just done so ); but the formulation, though not meaningless verbally, is meaningless in relation to reality: given the ideas on which the idea of OSAS depends in Calvinism, the question is incoherent. The damnation of a canonised Saint is coherent as a formulated idea; the reality of such an event, is not; it is meaningless as a reality (within the terms of reference of Catholic belief). A Saint can’t be damned, not because he has no free will, but because the the notion of being a Saint contradicts the notion of damnation, as does the reality.​

OSAS (in Calvinism at least) is another name for the “preservation of the saints”; it’s the P of TULIP. The preserving is not founded on the efforts of the saint (= Christian believer; the S-word is being used in the NT sense, not in the later sense “Christian believer who is a shining example of what a Christian believer should be (& by implication, often is not)”, but on the work of God. It is only because God preserves His saints, that they are preserved at all: “Without Me, you can do nothing”. The (Infinite) action of God, is the condition of their (finite) actions - it doesn’t “swamp” their action, because it is not reducible to finite actions. God is the Prime & Universal Cause: all other causes, because created, are secondary to His & depend on His. He doesn’t obliterate His elects’ love & obedience to Him by being God, any more than He obliterates what He has created by being its Creator.

As for sinning: do we Catholics think, “I love God, I know He is merciful, I can easily be absolved of sin: so, it’s time for me to burn down a church” ? Doesn’t the question answer itself ? If so, why must it be the case that those who believe themselves elected to salvation, think: “I’m elect - so I can sin to my heart’s content ?” That sort of attitude would be an indication that one was not elect; that one was abusing grace for one’s own sinful purposes, instead of obeying the Sinless Christ who died to save His people from sin. The very character of grace, of the Gospel, of Christ, of God, of the Holy Spirit, of the Christian life, of election, of so much more as well, contradict & deny & reject any idea that men are saved from sin that they may sin on more. St. Paul protests against the same perversion of grace, in Romans 6.

I hope that helps

 

[kalt]

What I want to know is what happens to someone who dies unrepentant. I don’t think that people who believe in OSAS think that they can sin all they want and “get away with it”.

What I want to know is what they believe happens to the sinner who dies unrepentant.

That is like saying that someone can receive the grace of final perseverance, yet be damned. The problem is a phantom; it can be formulated (you’ve just done so ); but the formulation, though not meaningless verbally, is meaningless in relation to reality: given the ideas on which the idea of OSAS depends in Calvinism, the question is incoherent. The damnation of a canonised Saint is coherent as a formulated idea; the reality of such an event, is not; it is meaningless as a reality (within the terms of reference of Catholic belief). A Saint can’t be damned, not because he has no free will, but because the the notion of being a Saint contradicts the notion of damnation, as does the reality.​

OSAS (in Calvinism at least) is another name for the “preservation of the saints”; it’s the P of TULIP. The preserving is not founded on the efforts of the saint (= Christian believer; the S-word is being used in the NT sense, not in the later sense “Christian believer who is a shining example of what a Christian believer should be (& by implication, often is not)”, but on the work of God. It is only because God preserves His saints, that they are preserved at all: “Without Me, you can do nothing”. The (Infinite) action of God, is the condition of their (finite) actions - it doesn’t “swamp” their action, because it is not reducible to finite actions. God is the Prime & Universal Cause: all other causes, because created, are secondary to His & depend on His. He doesn’t obliterate His elects’ love & obedience to Him by being God, any more than He obliterates what He has created by being its Creator.

As for sinning: do we Catholics think, “I love God, I know He is merciful, I can easily be absolved of sin: so, it’s time for me to burn down a church” ? Doesn’t the question answer itself ? If so, why must it be the case that those who believe themselves elected to salvation, think: “I’m elect - so I can sin to my heart’s content ?” That sort of attitude would be an indication that one was not elect; that one was abusing grace for one’s own sinful purposes, instead of obeying the Sinless Christ who died to save His people from sin. The very character of grace, of the Gospel, of Christ, of God, of the Holy Spirit, of the Christian life, of election, of so much more as well, contradict & deny & reject any idea that men are saved from sin that they may sin on more. St. Paul protests against the same perversion of grace, in Romans 6.

I hope that helps

 

[Ruthie]

I have a friend who is a firm believer in OSAS. I asked him a very similar question. His answer was that, even if the guy lived a long and sinless life before he fell, his falling meant he had never really been saved in the first place.

That’s one reason I’m a Catholic! I thank God for the Sacrament of Reconciliation!

Ruthie

 

[tealblue]

Its kind of an oxymoron of sorts. One will say I will never lose my salvation. Then this same person will say to an ex believer that he was never saved in the first place. Basically you are dermining your own salvation. Declaring yourself saved.

As to the question of what happens to the unrepentant OSAS sinner. Same as any unreoentant sinner. God will judge him on the knowledge he has given. One thing is for sure I wouldn’t have been able to get rid of a five year porn addiction without Gods true grace from his sacraments. How God would have judged me in my OSAS state I won’t know in this life. Thats in hoping I endure til the end.

 

[kalt]

I have a friend who is a firm believer in OSAS. I asked him a very similar question. His answer was that, even if the guy lived a long and sinless life before he fell, his falling meant he had never really been saved in the first place.

That’s one reason I’m a Catholic! I thank God for the Sacrament of Reconciliation!

Ruthie

Makes no sense to me. How can they be OSAS, but never know if they are saved in the first place?

Isn’t that the same as saying that you have to persevere to the end, and that you need to reconcile yourself to God after sinning? Isn’t the way they think really Catholic?

I think it is, but they don’t want to admit it.

Instead of saying that a person was in a state of grace for decades, and then commited a mortal sin, they say that the person was never in a state of grace.

That’s ludicrous, imo. Obviously, if a person truly believes in Christ, and if they are living a good Christian life - doing what God demands, not simply avoiding mortal sin, they are “saved” in the OSAS sense.

Later mortal sin can’t be proof that this person was never a good and faithful Christian.

I have another question.

If the person who is a good and faithful Christian (born again) for decades commits a mortal sin, how do they reconcile themselves with God? Since this is proof, according to OSAS theology, that the person was never “saved”, how does that person become saved? Do they need to be Baptized again? Confession wouldn’t seem to be enough to bring about sure salvation, if being Baptized (born again) and living as a faithful Christian for decades wasn’t enough in the OSAS world. Isn’t being “born again” what brings about the OSAS state? Confession can’t bring that about. Does the person have to start over?

 

[brkn1]

I have another question.

If the person who is a good and faithful Christian (born again) for decades commits a mortal sin, how do they reconcile themselves with God? Since this is proof, according to OSAS theology, that the person was never “saved”, how does that person become saved? Do they need to be Baptized again? Confession wouldn’t seem to be enough to bring about sure salvation, if being Baptized (born again) and living as a faithful Christian for decades wasn’t enough in the OSAS world. Isn’t being “born again” what brings about the OSAS state? Confession can’t bring that about. Does the person have to start over?

Being born again is one of the keys to understanding OSAS theology.
Many believe that a person becomes “born again” through physical baptism. This does not line up with how the regenerative birth is described by (John 1:13):
“Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
Physical baptism involves the “will of the flesh” and “the will of man”, so that can not be the means of spiritual regeneration into God’s family through the new birth (born again).

We know that the old sin-nature does not get removed by our doing good or becoming “born again” by the Holy Spirit. The new creature (born again) nature that gets spiritually planted into us has to co-exist with the original sin-nature. The new nature should dominate and effectively weaken the old sin-nature, but this is obviously not the case for most people. The idea that a “mortal sin” takes away our adoption and “un-borns us” is not found in the bible.

Perhaps someone could explain the exact meaning of the RCC idea of being “born again”. It should be a clear explanation, since we know that Jesus put great emphasis on its necessity for salvation.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

What I want to know is what happens to someone who dies unrepentant. I don’t think that people who believe in OSAS think that they can sin all they want and “get away with it”.

What I want to know is what they believe happens to the sinner who dies unrepentant.

To be preserved from that, is to be kept from dying unrepentant - that is what the TULIP OSAS is: preservation from dying under God’s Wrath. That is why the question as asked is about a thing that is not real: see post 2. (I don’t know how non-Calvinist, OSAS would answer the question.)​

As to the unrepentant:

Short answer: only the non-elect are not preserved; they die under God’s Wrath, outside Christ: that is what non-election is - not being reconciled to God: which results in dying not in Christ, but outside Him. The elect are chosen in Him, & all things work for good to them (Rom. 8.28-39) so that they die in Him, & not outside Him.

For Calvin, God’s permission is not an* absence of action* (as it was to be with some kinds of RC theology), but a form of action. The issues involved would take us far from the topic of the thread.I suggest a reading of Calvin’s “Eternal Predestination of God”, & of the works of St. Augustine which he quotes in it: the doctrine of the preservation of the saints is not Calvin’s invention - it’s in Augustine & St.Paul (to name only him of NT writers); who takes it from the OT. OSAS (in its Calvinist form) is a vulgarisation of the P of TULIP; which is an acronym for such points of Calvinism as were defended by the Synod of Dort in 1618 against the Arminian party in the Dutch Reformed Church; TULIP deals with part of Calvinist doctrine, & only part. Most of the objections are not against Calvin alone, but against Augustine & Paul.

Hope that helps

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Makes no sense to me. How can they be OSAS, but never know if they are saved in the first place?

Isn’t that the same as saying that you have to persevere to the end, and that you need to reconcile yourself to God after sinning? Isn’t the way they think really Catholic?

No, it’s not. And there are two reasons why not:​

• the emphasis is in the wrong place
• A lot of the detail of this doctrine (& others) is missing

I think it is, but they don’t want to admit it.

Instead of saying that a person was in a state of grace for decades, and then commited a mortal sin, they say that the person was never in a state of grace.

That’s ludicrous, imo. Obviously, if a person truly believes in Christ, and if they are living a good Christian life - doing what God demands, not simply avoiding mortal sin, they are “saved” in the OSAS sense.

That is not the Calvinist understanding of (so-called) OSAS, though. All of that is possible for someone who is not elected to salvation, who not preserved, who is reprobated by God. Only by grace are elect sinners saved.​

A non-elect sinner can do all those things, by what is called “common grace” - that is no proof of his being elect; & only the elect are preserved from final damnation.

Later mortal sin can’t be proof that this person was never a good and faithful Christian.

The elect may fall terribly - they will not stay fallen: they will be chastised (Hebrews 12. 5 ff), but they are still God’s children despite their falls. God’s fatherly chastisements of them are not the final destruction suffered by the non-elect.​

I have another question.

If the person who is a good and faithful Christian (born again) for decades commits a mortal sin, how do they reconcile themselves with God? Since this is proof, according to OSAS theology, that the person was never “saved”, how does that person become saved?

It is not “proof”: for that is **not **what Calvinist “OSAS” says - so the question doesn’t arise in Calvinism. See previous answer - or read a proper Calvinist ​

Do they need to be Baptized again?

No.​

Confession wouldn’t seem to be enough to bring about sure salvation, if being Baptized (born again) and living as a faithful Christian for decades wasn’t enough in the OSAS world. Isn’t being “born again” what brings about the OSAS state? Confession can’t bring that about. Does the person have to start over?

Most of that is based in a misunderstanding of Calvinism.​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Being born again is one of the keys to understanding OSAS theology.
Many believe that a person becomes “born again” through physical baptism. This does not line up with how the regenerative birth is described by (John 1:13):
“Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
Physical baptism involves the “will of the flesh” and “the will of man”, so that can not be the means of spiritual regeneration into God’s family through the new birth (born again).

We know that the old sin-nature does not get removed by our doing good or becoming “born again” by the Holy Spirit. The new creature (born again) nature that gets spiritually planted into us has to co-exist with the original sin-nature. The new nature should dominate and effectively weaken the old sin-nature, but this is obviously not the case for most people. The idea that a “mortal sin” takes away our adoption and “un-borns us” is not found in the bible.

Perhaps someone could explain the exact meaning of the RCC idea of being “born again”. It should be a clear explanation, since we know that Jesus put great emphasis on its necessity for salvation.

Here’s the starter ​

Baptism is a sacrament of the New Law, & all the Sacraments are the works of Christ above all; He is the Principal Minister.

 

[jrssls]

I posted this question in another thread, but the OP didn’t respond. Hoping that someone will answer it here.

"But with all due respect, and to be fair…

The OP = These same annoying things come from Catholics on this board also, and are directed toward Protestant visitors. Quick example…OSAS, whether you believe in it or not (I don’t, and I know Catholics don’t), in no way does it mean one can sin all he/she wants to and everything gets pushed under the rug because of OSAS.

My question = Here’s your chance to clear up that misconception. A man is born again. He lives a good life for decades after being born again. At some point, for some reason, he loses his way. He robs a bank and kills the teller and the bank manager. What happens to this person if he is unrepentant for this sin until death–he dies unrepentant for the sin he commited-- never asks God for forgiveness? (We can’t know that he died unrepentant, but God can. So we will say that God knows he died unrepentant.)"

If he died without asking God for forgiveness . . . he’s in Hell. If you knowingly did something that was not right (sinned) and didn’t ask God for forgiveness, than you don’t have a repentant heart. That’s just the way it is.

 

[jrssls]

Makes no sense to me. How can they be OSAS, but never know if they are saved in the first place?

Isn’t that the same as saying that you have to persevere to the end, and that you need to reconcile yourself to God after sinning? Isn’t the way they think really Catholic?

I think it is, but they don’t want to admit it.

Instead of saying that a person was in a state of grace for decades, and then commited a mortal sin, they say that the person was never in a state of grace.

That’s ludicrous, imo. Obviously, if a person truly believes in Christ, and if they are living a good Christian life - doing what God demands, not simply avoiding mortal sin, they are “saved” in the OSAS sense.

Later mortal sin can’t be proof that this person was never a good and faithful Christian.

I have another question.

If the person who is a good and faithful Christian (born again) for decades commits a mortal sin, how do they reconcile themselves with God? Since this is proof, according to OSAS theology, that the person was never “saved”, how does that person become saved? Do they need to be Baptized again? Confession wouldn’t seem to be enough to bring about sure salvation, if being Baptized (born again) and living as a faithful Christian for decades wasn’t enough in the OSAS world. Isn’t being “born again” what brings about the OSAS state? Confession can’t bring that about. Does the person have to start over?

If they are truly sorry for whatever sin they have committed and ask God for forgiveness, God will erase that sin from his records and remember it no more. That’s how you reconcile yourself with God. It’s so easy. Roman 10:5-13 says, 5Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: “The man who does these things will live by them.” 6But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ (that is, to bring Christ down)7“or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).8But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming:9That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.11As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile–the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,
13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

 

[kalt]

Being born again is one of the keys to understanding OSAS theology.
Many believe that a person becomes “born again” through physical baptism. This does not line up with how the regenerative birth is described by (John 1:13):
“Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
Physical baptism involves the “will of the flesh” and “the will of man”, so that can not be the means of spiritual regeneration into God’s family through the new birth (born again).

We know that the old sin-nature does not get removed by our doing good or becoming “born again” by the Holy Spirit. The new creature (born again) nature that gets spiritually planted into us has to co-exist with the original sin-nature. The new nature should dominate and effectively weaken the old sin-nature, but this is obviously not the case for most people. The idea that a “mortal sin” takes away our adoption and “un-borns us” is not found in the bible.

Perhaps someone could explain the exact meaning of the RCC idea of being “born again”. It should be a clear explanation, since we know that Jesus put great emphasis on its necessity for salvation.

So that’s what I don’t understand. If you can’t be “un-born”, and you can’t ever tell that you are truly “born again”, because commiting a mortal sin is proof that you weren’t, where in the world does the OSAS theology come from?

People who believe in OSAS theology criticize the Catholic Church for following the Bible on salvation – that no one can be assured of his own until he dies. (We must persevere to the end.)

Yet these same people, when asked about what happens to a born again person who commits a mortal sin, say that the person was obviously not saved.

If no one can know that they’re actually born again until they die, how are they so sure of their salvation today?

 

[kalt]

To be preserved from that, is to be kept from dying unrepentant - that is what the TULIP OSAS is: preservation from dying under God’s Wrath. That is why the question as asked is about a thing that is not real: see post 2. (I don’t know how non-Calvinist, OSAS would answer the question.)​

So they are preserved from the effects of their mortal sins? What about free will? Do Calvinists deny that everyone has free will? Do they elect not have the free will to turn away from God?

As to the unrepentant:

Short answer: only the non-elect are not preserved; they die under God’s Wrath, outside Christ: that is what non-election is - not being reconciled to God: which results in dying not in Christ, but outside Him. The elect are chosen in Him, & all things work for good to them (Rom. 8.28-39) so that they die in Him, & not outside Him.

For Calvin, God’s permission is not an* absence of action* (as it was to be with some kinds of RC theology), but a form of action. The issues involved would take us far from the topic of the thread.I suggest a reading of Calvin’s “Eternal Predestination of God”, & of the works of St. Augustine which he quotes in it: the doctrine of the preservation of the saints is not Calvin’s invention - it’s in Augustine & St.Paul (to name only him of NT writers); who takes it from the OT. OSAS (in its Calvinist form) is a vulgarisation of the P of TULIP; which is an acronym for such points of Calvinism as were defended by the Synod of Dort in 1618 against the Arminian party in the Dutch Reformed Church; TULIP deals with part of Calvinist doctrine, & only part. Most of the objections are not against Calvin alone, but against Augustine & Paul.

Hope that helps

 

[kalt]

No, it’s not. And there are two reasons why not:​

• the emphasis is in the wrong place
• A lot of the detail of this doctrine (& others) is missing

That is not the Calvinist understanding of (so-called) OSAS, though. All of that is possible for someone who is not elected to salvation, who not preserved, who is reprobated by God. Only by grace are elect sinners saved.​

A non-elect sinner can do all those things, by what is called “common grace” - that is no proof of his being elect; & only the elect are preserved from final damnation.

The elect may fall terribly - they will not stay fallen: they will be chastised (Hebrews 12. 5 ff), but they are still God’s children despite their falls. God’s fatherly chastisements of them are not the final destruction suffered by the non-elect.​

It is not “proof”: for that is not what Calvinist “OSAS” says - so the question doesn’t arise in Calvinism. See previous answer - or read a proper Calvinist ​

No.​

Most of that is based in a misunderstanding of Calvinism.​

I don’t know how we got into a conversation about Calvinism exclusively. I’m talking about those who believe what I’m posting. If Calvinists don’t, these questions aren’t about Calvinism.

 

[kalt]

If he died without asking God for forgiveness . . . he’s in Hell. If you knowingly did something that was not right (sinned) and didn’t ask God for forgiveness, than you don’t have a repentant heart. That’s just the way it is.

But he was “once saved” so “always saved”, according to his religion.

How can he be OSAS and end up in Hell?

 

[kalt]

But this is a OSAS question. If the person needs to reconcile himself to God before he dies, there is, obviously, the chance that he is not “always saved”… He could choose not to confess his sin to God.

If commiting this moral sin means that he is no longer “always saved” (he must reconcile himself to God first), does OSAS make any sense?

If OSAS is true, and this person loses the “always saved” part of it by commiting a mortal sin, how does this person get the OSAS combo deal again?

Can a person ever tell that he is one of the people who is truly OSAS. (In another post, someone mentioned that the common responce to the question of mortal sin, is that the person was never really saved, though he thought he was.)

If they are truly sorry for whatever sin they have committed and ask God for forgiveness, God will erase that sin from his records and remember it no more. That’s how you reconcile yourself with God. It’s so easy. Roman 10:5-13 says, 5Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: “The man who does these things will live by them.” 6But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ (that is, to bring Christ down)7“or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).8But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming:9That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.11As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile–the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,
13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

 

[Pastor_Jim]

I posted this question in another thread, but the OP didn’t respond. Hoping that someone will answer it here.

"But with all due respect, and to be fair…

The OP = These same annoying things come from Catholics on this board also, and are directed toward Protestant visitors. Quick example…OSAS, whether you believe in it or not (I don’t, and I know Catholics don’t), in no way does it mean one can sin all he/she wants to and everything gets pushed under the rug because of OSAS.

My question = Here’s your chance to clear up that misconception. A man is born again. He lives a good life for decades after being born again. At some point, for some reason, he loses his way. He robs a bank and kills the teller and the bank manager. What happens to this person if he is unrepentant for this sin until death–he dies unrepentant for the sin he commited-- never asks God for forgiveness? (We can’t know that he died unrepentant, but God can. So we will say that God knows he died unrepentant.)"

How does somebody who is born again have a desire to do these things when the Bible says that somebody who is born again is now at war with his sin?

Sounds to me like he would be one of the people the Bible describes as a false convert. That is, somebody who says all the right words and participates in all of the rituals, but is not born again.

Being born again doesn’t just mean that the slate is wiped clean and you do your best to stay out of trouble. It means that you die to your sin and no longer serve sin.

That’s why 1 John 3:4-10 describes it this way:

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth __ also the law for sin is the transgression of the law 5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins and in him is no sin 6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not whosoever sinneth hath not seen him neither known him 7 Little children let no man deceive you he that doeth righteousness is righteous even as he is righteous 8 He that committeth sin is of the devil for the devil sinneth from the beginning For this purpose the Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the works of the devil 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 10 In this the children of God are manifest and the children of the devil whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God neither he that loveth not his brother

 

[brkn1]

So that’s what I don’t understand. If you can’t be “un-born”, and you can’t ever tell that you are truly “born again”, because commiting a mortal sin is proof that you weren’t, where in the world does the OSAS theology come from?

People who believe in OSAS theology criticize the Catholic Church for following the Bible on salvation – that no one can be assured of his own until he dies. (We must persevere to the end.)

Yet these same people, when asked about what happens to a born again person who commits a mortal sin, say that the person was obviously not saved.

If no one can know that they’re actually born again until they die, how are they so sure of their salvation today?

A person that truly becomes “born again” will know it. There is a change in that person that can not be described to anyone who has not also been spiritually regenerated by God.
I suspect that many of those who are born again lose their sense of being so, because they neglect the things of God (their first-love). They still are members of God’s family in Christ.
Those who do not neglect the things of God will be strengthened by the Holy Spirit. This will make them even more sure of their salvation and they will grow in love, knowing, and service towards God and also towards their fellow man.

A person who is truly “born again” can not commit a “mortal sin” as you propose. I agree with the Baptists that all of a person’s past, present, and future sins are paid for when that person is placed into the Beloved at the moment of true belief and acceptance of what the Lord Jesus Christ did for us by His death, burial, and resurrection. That is why Jesus said that we have “eternal life” at the same time we believe. See (John 3:16).
Having eternal life could not be so called “eternal”, if it could be lost.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

So that’s what I don’t understand. If you can’t be “un-born”, and you can’t ever tell that you are truly “born again”, because commiting a mortal sin is proof that you weren’t,

No it’s not. As explained at wearisome length.​

where in the world does the OSAS theology come from?

The Bible as read with the benefit of St. Augustine, largely. At various times, Catholic exegesis has been based on allegorising the text & a reading of the Bible not influenced by the original languages; & been influenced by Aristotle. Calvin was familiar with Greek & Hebrew, wary of Aristotle (but not as hostile to him as Luther was), rejected allegorisation, & judged Tradition by Scripture. So he accepts Gottschalk of Orbais as a witness to reprobation, rather than treating him as a heretic (as the Council of Orleans did).​

There is more to it than that .

People who believe in OSAS theology criticize the Catholic Church for following the Bible on salvation – that no one can be assured of his own until he dies. (We must persevere to the end.)

Yet these same people, when asked about what happens to a born again person who commits a mortal sin, say that the person was obviously not saved.

Some do - others have a better understanding of the doctrine; not everyone can follow a theological argument. That people can’t give an account of a doctrine in a way that is convincing to an unfriendly critic of it is not always their fault: but w/o the grace of God, no conviction is possible.​

Grave sin after adoption as a child of God is entirely possible. To sin beyond God’s ability to forgive is not, & to fall away once adopted is not. Mortal sin destroys the life of grace utterly - Calvinism regards such a thing as impossible; so their doctrine allows for what we call grave (= serious but not mortal) sin; not for MS.

If no one can know that they’re actually born again until they die, how are they so sure of their salvation today?

“Multiple attestation”, & faith to bind these testimonies - of God, conscience, the Holy Spirit, the promises of Christ in general received in faith & enjoyed in particular, & other reasons - into one. Read Brooks.​

BTW, you’re confusing “being born again” with “having assurance of salvation”. There is nothing in the nature of assurance that makes it immediate - as Thomas Brooks (died 1662) points out in his book on assurance. That assurance is not of the essence of faith is (AFAIK) the usual opinion in Calvinism.

Calvinism’s doctrine of the relation between baptism & justification does not have baptism causing grace*** ex opere operato*** as our POV does. Their doctrine is closer to occasionalism: the cause of justification is the Holy Spirit, whether before baptism or not. (EOO is objectionable to Calvinists because they see it as denying the freeness of grace. Historically, this owes something to a blind-spot of Calvin’s: he was not sacramentally minded. Given the state of the influences upon him as a Catholic, this is understandable.)

A parallel from Catholicism: how are we so sure that what we believe is true ? Some things that we believe true are in principle falsifiable: it is not beyond all possibility that the tomb of the BVM will be identified, & found to have the corpse of a female in it; the bones of the BVM might in principle be accurately identified. Would this destroy all belief in the infallible truth of the definition of the Assumption ? People have strategies for coping with such problems. Yet, whether this ever occurs or not, we believe her Assumption to be a real event. We can’t prove the belief did not arise from misidentifying a tomb - but believe even so.

Sorry about length - these are v. involved questions though