Once saved, always saved?

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 10:50 am

Suicide won't send a person to hell. That doesn't mean it's ok. It results in the halting of the sanctification process and the loss of eternal inheritance, not the loss in salvation.

BavarianWheels · Post by **BavarianWheels** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:09 am

Jac3510 wrote:Suicide won't send a person to hell. That doesn't mean it's ok. It results in the halting of the sanctification process and the loss of eternal inheritance, not the loss in salvation.

Suicide forfeits "eternal inheritance?"

Is there scripture for this?
.
.

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 11:36 am

See the references I've quoted to defend the general position of OSAS (OJAJ) vs. the loss of reward (reward=inheritance). Actually, I may do a write-up on the subject of heavenly inheritance. It helps explain the reward system a bit better . . .

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:11 pm

Frankly i don't think christians should even worry about that. The Holy Spirit dwells within our body and as such we must have total faith in its guidance and not defile its name.

On another note Jac you mentioned something about God perserving the Jews. I don't know where you got this idea because it ultimately neglects the New Testiment. Anyone, gentile or Jew, who accepts that Christ is the Son of God will be saved. I think its as simple as that. Jesus said that few Jewish people and many gentiles will be in heaven with Abraham. This really applies to our modern time because frankly ive heard some Jewish people defile every aspect of the trinity as if the New Testiment was a forgery.

The NT also states that anyone who doesn't accept Christ, such as the pharisees will be thrown into the fire. Now what your saying is that the Jews will be preserved even though they don't accept christ, that doesn't make any sense.

If you could make up a new thread that would be great. I really don't understand what your saying here because it goes against the NT.

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Fri Dec 03, 2004 9:53 pm

vvart wrote:Frankly i don't think christians should even worry about that. The Holy Spirit dwells within our body and as such we must have total faith in its guidance and not defile its name.

In one sense I can agree with you. I pointed this out in a paper I wrote entitled "The Sabbath: A Brief Look at the History of the Sabbath and Its Application to Modern Christians." In it, I said:

Similarly, whether it turns out that a man can or cannot lose his salvation holds little practical value. Proponents of both sides would agree that one should live the Christian life as close to perfection as possible, echoing Paul's statement of Romans 6:1-2a: “What shall we say then? Should we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid!!”

In another sense, though, I disagree, because, as I said to Bav., an improper approach to the question of salvation can land a person in hell. My theology professor put it this way: "God saves by grace or not all all." I'll let your draw your own implications from that, and you can probably see what I draw from it.

vvart wrote:If you could make up a new thread that would be great. I really don't understand what your saying here because it goes against the NT.

Sure thing. Give me a day or two. I'm right in the middle of finals, and that thread will require some extensive Scripture reference and commentary. Dispensationalism is, as I have said, a hot topic. I suspect that quite a few differences of opinion will emerge on several very subtle issues. It should be fun, though. Positions like this really challenge our presuppositions. In the meantime, let me just say that it doesn't negate the NT at all. To quote my own post in which this issue was raised:

On Monday, Nov. 22, at 7:38 PM, Jac3510 wrote:This text doesn't suggest that Israel lost their salvation. It says that they have to believe in the New Covenant in order to be saved, just like we do.

God bless

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:35 pm

ahh if only i read what you put on Nov. 22.

Take your time, im just new to this idea and I was mainly referring to Jews who rejected the new covenant.

Felgar · Post by **Felgar** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:19 pm

Hey guys,

I was in a discussion that was flirting with becoming a whole OSAS doctrine argument when someone asked why satan would go through so much trouble to corrupt one Christian. I replied that he does that not for the sake of the Christian, but for those that the Christian would later influence. Of course the parable of the sower backs that up fully. Anyways, it got me thinking about OSAS once again.

A verse came to me, and I think it lends further credence to the OSAS doctrine. I'm not sure I've seen it used in conjuction with this argument...

Luke 15:8-10 (Jesus is speaking, and speaking of salvation - extra credence on both counts there.

)

Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins[1] and loses one. Does she not light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it? And when she finds it, she calls her friends and neighbors together and says, 'Rejoice with me; I have found my lost coin.' In the same way, I tell you, there is rejoicing in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents."

Now, I would expect the angels to be rejoicing at the moment of salvation (and this is what Jesus is indicating here). If OSAS did not hold, I would expect the angels would be singing when a faithful Christain dies and now has no chance of losing his salvation. But instead, they sing when a sinner repents - they are rejoicing that another soul is justified through Christ and will join them in heaven.

What dya guys think?

BavarianWheels · Post by **BavarianWheels** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 2:01 am

Felgar wrote:What dya guys think?

Pretty good...If the repentant sinner all of a sudden loses his/her ability of freewill.

I'll say it again. OSAS is correct only in the sense that the person remains in Christ. Lucifer was more in Christ than we are today...yet he chose to leave...explain that one. Lucifer had immortality already!

The true believer will never lose salvation. That is true. But the true believer after confessing Christ, still has freewill.
.
.

Felgar · Post by **Felgar** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:37 am

BavarianWheels wrote:Lucifer was more in Christ than we are today...yet he chose to leave...explain that one. Lucifer had immortality already!

Yeah but the angels are held to a different standard; they cannot be forgiven like we can.

But please, 7 pages of the same circle of arguments is enough. I just thought that verse was a good one.

BavarianWheels · Post by **BavarianWheels** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:40 am

Felgar wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Lucifer was more in Christ than we are today...yet he chose to leave...explain that one. Lucifer had immortality already!
Yeah but the angels are held to a different standard; they cannot be forgiven like we can.

But please, 7 pages of the same circle of arguments is enough. I just thought that verse was a good one.

Freewill is the biggest argument against OSAS (as most people view OSAS).
.
.

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 11:02 am

BavarianWheels wrote:Freewill is the biggest argument against OSAS (as most people view OSAS).
.
.

Funny . . . I'm all about free will, and I don't have a problem with it

. But then again, I don't believe we have the free choice to walk away from God.

Good verse, Felgar, and an excellent argument.

BavarianWheels · Post by **BavarianWheels** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 1:17 pm

Jac3510 wrote:
BavarianWheels wrote:Freewill is the biggest argument against OSAS (as most people view OSAS).
.
.
Funny . . . I'm all about free will, and I don't have a problem with it . But then again, I don't believe we have the free choice to walk away from God.

Then you really aren't "all about free will" now are you?

.
.

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 1:30 pm

I am, but not in the way you define it. You say "free will" is a problem to OSAS. I say it is only in the way you define it, and I don't believe the Bible anywhere supports that type of definition.

BavarianWheels · Post by **BavarianWheels** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 2:09 pm

Jac3510 wrote:I am, but not in the way you define it. You say "free will" is a problem to OSAS. I say it is only in the way you define it, and I don't believe the Bible anywhere supports that type of definition.

Is free will limited?

If it is, then it is not free will.
.
.

Jac3510 · Post by **Jac3510** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 4:56 pm

Do you have the free will to fly like superman? Is your "free will" limited?