Once saved, always saved?

[Anonymous]

Some people think Judas was a Christian - he followed Jesus and even took care of the money bag! The disciples had no clue... they thought that when Judas went to betray Jesus after the last supper, he had gone to give money to the poor John 13:27-29. So, no one else but Jesus knew how deceptive this professing believer's heart truly was. Here's a good clue though,

Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? John 6:70

Of corse, Judas was once saved. John 6:70 refers to the time when he was already a backslider. Look at Matthew 19:25-28:

25 When the disciples (the twelve, including Judas) heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?"
26 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
27 Peter answered him, "We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?"
28 Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Judas was included in the plan of Christ to sit on one of the thrones when he comes again. If Judas was never a Christian, why would Christ promised that throne to him?

[Anonymous]

In conclusion, then:

1) Justification is a one time, irreversible declaration of God that seals one's place in heaven.

Can a person justified by God find himself in Hell?

God bless

It's possible. Paul said to the Galatians: "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." (5:4)

These Christians were justified by faith and have received the Spirit of God by BELIEVING the gospel they have heard (3:1-2) They began with the Spirit but now they were trying to attain their goal by human effort (3:3). According to Paul, they were now trying to be JUSTIFIED by observing the law. By doing so, Paul said that they have been ALIENATED FROM CHRIST and HAVE FALLEN FROM GRACE. If they have been ALIENATED from Christ, they are no longer IN Christ which is the very basis of justification. And if they have FALLEN from grace, they are no longer under grace but under God's condemnation.

Paul said, "I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you." (4:11) That's because they are on the brink of losing their salvation. If not, there's no reason for Paul to say, "I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you."

[Anonymous]

Enjoyed reading your post Jac. Especially love the scripture.

I always thought Rev 3:5 meant something else about overcoming - relating to either the end times where we'll be tried in our faith (even to the point of death - see Rev 12:11). Seems like all the other references about overcoming in Revelation refer to this, even when Satan is given authority to overcome the saints Rev 13:7 . That's an interesting interpretation about the born again overcoming - enjoyed chewing on that.

Question - How does Romans 11 fit into OJAJ? I definately understand the concept of justification - it's "just as if" I've never sinned - and santification - the process of becoming "holy". The Nazarene church is really into those two things, even think they believe someone can be totally sanctified to the point where they no longer sin. *shrug* Just curious your take on Rom 11.

[Anonymous]

Third Option,

That's a great passage of scripture from John. I never noticed that before. I guess I always looked towards Acts 1:23-26 where it says Judas by transgression fell from the apostles that he might go to his own place and they appointed Matthias to be numbered with the 11. I would pressume that Matthias inherited Judas' position here including rightful rulership to reign with Christ. Reminds me a lot of the Jews and how they rejected Jesus by transgression but we by faith were graffed in to take their position. It's why Paul said in Acts 13:46

It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

I could definately be wrong about Judas, but I wouldn't understand how God would let a devil inherit eternal life much less judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Might be surprised in glory though...

[BavarianWheels]

Edit: Apology is two posts down...as I was pointed to my sin...and accepted.

OK guys, this is the last time I'll respond in this thread. As has been noted, things are getting a bit heated, and while that is OK to an extent, I think we are coming close to the place where we all have to say (or at least me) that we have stated our positions and let conclusions be drawn.

Briefly, before I walk through Bav's primary objections to OSAS, let me comment on Adam. Listen, Bav. God never declared Adam righteous. Show me in the Scriptures where He did. I can show you where He declared Abraham righteous (Gen. 15:6), and I can show you where we are declared righteous (Rom. 8:30).

I never said Adam was “declared” righteous nor did I claim the Scriptures do…but we must assume he eventually was! It makes no difference whether Adam was morally perfect or in a state of moral innocence. The fact remains…Adam was in a “saved” state…AND LOST IT!

Adam was created in a state of moral innocence, not moral perfection. In other words, he did NOT have a sin nature, and at the time of his creation, he had no sin in him. Therefore, he was morally innocent. That is very different from moral perfection, which is what we will be in the New Creation.

Really? Then please explain why when Christ was raised, his wounds were not healed. Tell me why they should serve as a reminder of what God did for us in another life? Why would even need to remind a morally perfect being about a past sin?

The fact is because we will retain our freewill when we are made new…just like Adam…with at least one simple advantage over Adam's creation…we Will know good and evil. We will know and remember what sin is and does by his scars.

A Morally Perfect being cannot sin. It goes against their very nature to sin. Please note that while Adam did not have a sin nature, he equally did not have a divine nature (as did Jesus Christ). Look at James 1:14. God tells us that sin tempts the desires already existing in us. What did Satan tempt Adam to? Easy: independence, autonomy, and self-government. Adam had a desire within him to "be his own god.' If he did not, then he would not have sinned, for he would not have been tempted. However, the existence of that potential restricts us from applying to Adam the term "moral perfection." Adam had what we might call a neutral nature, neither divine nor sinful. Today, we have sinful natures. Jesus had a divine nature, which is the reason He was able to live without sin.

Pretty close to Mormon theology that we will be gods. God will be the only one with a divine nature throughout eternity. We will remain created beings and subject to His sovereignty.

Another thing you fail to realize is that Satan was allowed to tempt Adam…or do you believe that without Satan around to tempt Adam we'd still be where we are today? Satan wont be around in 'heaven'. There will not be any temptation.

Did Adam tempt himself? Could Adam tempt himself?

Come on Jac3510…you're the pastor here. This is basic stuff…no Tempter = no temptation. The righteous people will not sin because of three reasons…no thanks to moral perfection.

1. No Satan present
2. Knowledge of good and evil
3. The scars as a reminder.

All of which Adam was without prior to sin. Satan was without this information also!

So…Adam is the supreme example of being in a saved state…and losing his salvation!

So, AGAIN, you still have to provide a precedent for your position. You haven't done it, and I guarantee you that you can't.

I did. I gave you Adam…a being created and within salvation already. You just refuse to accept it and use your own twisted logic to toss his example aside. The reason Adam remains as this example is already stated above.

Now:

First, let's clarify "Once Saved Always Saved." I have said this before and it was overlooked. What we are dealing with, more accurately, is "Once Justified Always Justified." It is EXTREMELY important that you see that, Bav.

I do see it. I understand it and believe it. However, one cannot rely in ourselves to remain in Christ. We must daily seek God and daily be broken! It is a commitment. How do we explain, then, the chosen people today? Are they still saved? I might as well live out the desires of my sinful flesh (they are many!)…because I've already accepted Christ…I've been justified.

Heck…even one of the new guys on here recently stated a few posts back something to the effect that we don't need to go and seek out the backslidden person because they are saved no matter in what state they find themselves in now. The reason he stated to go and bring them back was for our benefit and the benefit of others…not for themselves as the doctrine of OSAS is their safety net.

This is the type of thinking this OSAS brings. No regard for remaining true to Christ

The only way OSAS holds value is to the Christian that is committed to Christ. A daily struggle…as Paul.

What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?

I hope you understand that there is a constant struggle between the spiritual and the unspiritual within the mind of the Christian. When a person falls away…and stays away this struggle has ceased and s/he is no longer serving or seeking God, but serving and seeking self. The longer one stays in this state of mind, the easier it is to remain and eventually could be guilty of the unpardonable sin…resisting the call of the HS! That sin is unforgivable.

As I mentioned in a prior post, we are admonished throughout scripture to follow, endure, persevere, remain in. Why? Why persevere if once we come to Christ we are justified? If OSAS as you promote it is true…there's no need to persevere, remain in, follow, endure.

Observe:

1) Those whom God justifies are considered righteous before God (Rom. 4:5). As you are aware:

• “justification” “to justify,” in a legal sense, the declaring just or righteous.

I understand the legality of being justified. I also understand the illegality of committing the same sin again with no regard in seeking forgiveness and relying on OSAS.

In Biblical literature, δικαιουν, dikaioún, without denying the real righteousness of a person, is used invariably or almost invariably in a declarative or forensic sense. (ISBE)[/list]2) Righteousness is not real righteousness. That is, we are not literally righteous, but God chooses to view us as such. (see ISBE's article on justification, 3.5.b., esp, "This is shown further by the fact that it is the ungodly who are justified (Rom_4:5), and that the justification is a reckoning or imputation (logízesthai) of righteousness (Rom_4:6, Rom_4:22), not an infusing or making righteous.")
3) This righteousness is reckoned or imputed by grace (Rom. 4:6).
4) This grace is received through grace alone, and not by works (Eph. 2:8-10)

Now, to be declared righteous is to be justified of sins. That is, God makes a legal decree: Not Guilty. Those who are justified are adopted as Sons of God (Rom. 8:15, Eph. 1:5). Those who are the sons of God are no longer under the Law (Gal. 4:5). We know that the Law does not save, but that grace saves--in fact, the Law can only condemn! (Rom. 3:20)

All of this is quite clear to me…

So, picture what we know so far: you have come to faith in Jesus Christ, confessing with your mouth that He is Lord and God, and believing in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, as per Rom. 10:7-10. What happens? God, through His grace and His grace alone declares all your sins, past, present, and future, as paid. Jesus Christ has become the propitiation for all of them (Heb. 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 1 John 4:10). Therefore, you have overcome the world (1 John 5:4). We know you have overcome because you have been "born of God" (1 John 5:4).

What, then, does that say to us if we are "born of God?" Rev. 3:5 tells us that he who overcomes will not have his named blotted out of the book of life. Remember who overcomes: he who has been born again! So, if we have been born again, we have overcome, and if we have overcome, our names will not be blotted out of the book of life! This is undeniable. It is straight Scripture, Bav.

You are preaching to the choir here. This is well understood.

What, then, do we say about the Book of Life? Rev. 20:15 says that anyone who is not in that book will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. Why? Because they will be judged from the other books, that is, the books of their works, and their works will show them guilty. However, those in the Book of Life will not be guilty for their works, because their works have already been paid for by Jesus Christ through His justification of their sins through their faith in Him!

Therefore, we conclude that future sin in the life of the Christian does not prevent him from being saved, for there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). ALL sins have been atoned for. Therefore, we are forced to ask ourselves this question: how can one be unjustified once he has been justified? We will note that no where in the Scriptures, not ANYWHERE, is a justified man declared unrighteous. This is because it cannot be done! Why? Because justification is not the work of man--it is the work of God, and what God has done, man cannot undo.

Except by freewill!!

You ask what of the man who removes his faith in Jesus Christ. I say that he cannot be renewed to the state of repentance (Heb. 6:4), and his state now will be worse than it was prior to being justified (2 Peter 2:20). Why is it worse? Because, like Saul, God has rejected his service in this life, and he has been turned over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh (1 Cor. 5:5). It is a horrible state, one of deep shame. But, this does NOT unjustify him. How can it? Even that gross sin has already been forgiven! If not, then that means that God changed His mind, and He clearly has not done that!

You argue that OSAS (better, OJAJ) allows a person the right to "keep on sinning." I have adequately shown that it does not. If a person does keep on sinning, then he loses out on the sanctification process. He can no longer lay up treasures in heaven, so he is worse off than the unbeliever who still has a chance. He is still, though, justified. That means he is still in the book of life, and that means he still has a place in heaven.

It is, therefore, absolutely essential that we understand the relationship between justification and salvation. You cannot assume that salvation results from sanctification. That simply is not true. It is the measure of your glorification that will result from the process of sanctification (2 Cor. 5:10. Note, this is a reference to the judgement of Christians. See also 1 Cor. 3:15).

In conclusion, then:

1) Justification is a one time, irreversible declaration of God that seals one's place in heaven.
2) Sanctification is the ongoing process through which the believer is turned more and more into the likeness of Christ. The measure of this sanctification equals the measure in which one will be glorified. This process may be halted by death or the loss (that is, rejection) of one's faith.

So one can lose faith and not lose grace? Grace comes by faith. You really contradict yourself here.

Here's a good question for you.

You mean to tell me a person that has accepted Christ as you point out above can then reject the sanctification process and still…in the end…claim the Blood of Christ and be saved?

My stance is, NO!

Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.

3) Glorification is that final state in which the work of salvation, began in justification, is completed. Some will be glorified more than others, depending on their exposure to the sanctification process.

Excellent…now you might as well start quoting Joseph Smith to back this up!

Therefore, OSAS IS the proper biblical doctrine.

I could go on to list dozens more references, Bav. I could argue that the rejection of this doctrine can actually land one in Hell. As long as this post is, it isn't nearly as detailed as it should be, but, it is enough to show that, Scripturally speaking, the justification process CANNOT BE REVERSED. You, then, have to answer one simple question:

Can a person justified by God find himself in Hell?

Yes. By a freewill choice of choosing and un-choosing God.

I reject it!

I also have accepted Christ as you put it above.
.
.

[Anonymous]

Bav,

First, I want to say that I agree with your theology. I could be wrong, but I'm very certain that we wait for the adoption into Christ's Kingdom after we have run our race, kept our faith, and finished the course. Hereforth we will receive the crown of righteousness unto eternal life - the full measure of God's Spirit and not just a downpayment.

Second, I want to say that I don't agree with your tactics. There is no reason to become condescending towards Jac - the "you're supposed to be the pastor here" is a rather prideful, attacking statement to assert. I would be very surprised if Jac decides to respond to your post anymore now that you've tried to humiliate him and even go as far to compare his theology to that of a Christian cult. Even if this allegement were to be true, you could have done it in a more meek and gentle way. Instead we've got trench warfare going on here.

Now, I'd like to continue talking about this topic - it's one that really interests me. But we're not going to get anywhere if we just fire missiles back and forth. Do what this website does, let the truth of scripture speak for itself. Start with a section that seemingly supports OSAS/OJAJ or seemingly disproves, then go from there. It will atleast give us a chance to think and ask God for wisdom rather than assert some of our own.

[BavarianWheels]

Second, I want to say that I don't agree with your tactics. There is no reason to become condescending towards Jac - the "you're supposed to be the pastor here" is a rather prideful, attacking statement to assert. I would be very surprised if Jac decides to respond to your post anymore now that you've tried to humiliate him and even go as far to compare his theology to that of a Christian cult. Even if this allegement were to be true, you could have done it in a more meek and gentle way. Instead we've got trench warfare going on here.

Doc, You're right.

Jac3510, I apologize for the attack. It was needless and wrong.
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

Bav,

First, I want to say that I agree with your theology. I could be wrong, but I'm very certain that we wait for the adoption into Christ's Kingdom after we have run our race, kept our faith, and finished the course. Hereforth we will receive the crown of righteousness unto eternal life - the full measure of God's Spirit and not just a downpayment.

Thanks, but it's not "mine" but that which others have stood and stand for. I stand there also.
.
.

[Anonymous]

MD are actually my first (Michael) and second (David) initials.
Was named after my dad - David Michael Premo. My parents were very creative : )

Appreciate your apology to Jac even if he doesn't get around to accepting it - definately takes humility, something the Lord honors.

I stand with you on the "finishing the course" doctrine. I promote just about anything that establishes a fear of the Lord. It is the beginning of wisdom. When we're moved into a realm where the fear of the Lord is no longer present, that's not a very safe place to be!! When we flatter ourselves speaking peace and safety that's when the Lord will come as a theif in the night and catch us beating other servants... It'll not go well for any on that day except those who prepare themselves. Where is that parable scripture located? Can't seem to find it.[/quote]

[Jac3510]

No apology is/was necessary, but it's accepted either way. Bav and I have known each other for some time, and we've had our spats before. The great news is that this one, the previous ones, and future ones all combined aren't going to change the fact that we're brothers in the Lord and that we'll see each other in heaven. It's pretty hard to offend me, but I do, Premo (actually, I like "Doc" ), appreciate your pointing things out if only because it reminds all of us (talking to myself especially here) that people may not exactly take things the way you mean them.

To Bav, specifically, we can agree to disagree on this. I'm sure it will come up in the future again. It's certainly a central doctrine. I hope I never came across harsh or arrogant in my own replies. If anything came across that way, accept my own apologies, because it wasn't intended.

In any case, I'm completely fine--not offended in the least.

Premo, I'll answer your question to me regarding Rom. 11 in the next day few days . . . very busy weekend coming up. I'll also readdress the Rev. 3:5 issue, because my comments to Bav had a bit of background that I didn't make explicit. I believe he and I have discussed them elsewhere, hence the brevity of the discussion at that point. But, do note, as I stated previously, I don't think I'm at a point where I need to be attempting to persuade. I'll respond here only because you asked specifically. Again, I'm not upset or offended at all--just trying to be sensitive to my own place in all this discussion. I'm certainly not all knowing, and I certainly don't have all the answers!

In the meantime, God bless, and I'll get back to this shortly.

[BavarianWheels]

To Bav, specifically, we can agree to disagree on this. I'm sure it will come up in the future again. It's certainly a central doctrine. I hope I never came across harsh or arrogant in my own replies. If anything came across that way, accept my own apologies, because it wasn't intended.

In any case, I'm completely fine--not offended in the least.

Sweet! (as in 'cool'... )

Now...I need to be honest here. What I posted about when we are made perfect. I was talking to my own pastor about this last night at Wed. night Bible Study. In short...he disagrees with me. (shocker!!!) Apparently it's not as "basic" as I thought. (cringes in embarassment!) He says pretty much the same as Jac3510 on when we put on immortality, we will be made perfect...including moral perfection.
However...I'm not convinced just because he says so. I still stand by what I posted for the reasons I posted. We touched a bit on it, but we didn't spend a whole lot of time on it.
We do, though, see the same as for the subject of OSAS. It is a true doctrine as long as it is referred to in the context of a faithful servant.
One that by their life from the point of accepting Christ to death has shone loyalty to his/her Savior and has felt the sense like that of Paul as the 'wretched' man.
One cannot promote the OSAS doctrine for a person that was (for example) saved in their 20's, fell away in their 30's...never recommitted to Christ or felt the need to do so...whether aware of the OSAS doctrine or not. A true Christian constantly is sensitive to his or her need of Christ.
.
.

[Jac3510]

Oh boy . . .

Let me just state a simple interpretation of Romans 11, MD. This is going to depend a lot on if you are a dispensationalist or not, and I happen to be.

I don't have a problem with Romans 11 because it is not talking about individual salvation, but it is rather talking about the initiation of the New Covenant and Israel's response to it. Jesus, of course, is the Vine, and we are grafted into Him when we are Christians as per John 14. That would be the other passage, I think, you have to read to get the whole picture. There, Jesus refers to individual salvation. Paul, here, refers to Israel's relationship with God in terms of their Covenant agreement.

So, in my thinking, God has done away with the Old Covenant. The Jews are trying to keep a contract that God isn't interested in anymore. Imagine if I came up and paid off your house. You are now mortgage free. Now, suppose you decide to go to the bank and continue making your payments. They would probably accept them, but that would certainly make for some problems. The contract would be over. It would be completed. The Davidic Covenant has been fulfilled in the Person of Jesus Christ. The Mosaic Law has been kept, and the Lord of that Law has made certain . . . ah . . .amendments. He keeps (kept) it perfectly, so it still stands with full authority. It just so happens that He takes its weight so that we don't have to.

So, we are left with the New Covenant. It is by THAT covenant that we are "grafted in." Individually, this process is described in John 14. If we abide in Jesus, He produces works in us (sanctification). If we don't abide in Him, we are cut off (halting of the process), and we find ourselves in the state that I have been arguing for throughout this thread. Justified but cast aside. We're Christians, but useless (think about "the salt of the earth" and what Jesus said happens when we "lose our saltiness.")

Romans 11 deals with Israel as a whole, though. They have not accepted the covenant, and therefore, they have not been grafted in. They once were grafted in through the Old Covenant, but that has been done away with. It was a completely different animal (or plant, I should say ). Look at it this way: a corn seed is just that--a corn seed. You plant it, and it dies and becomes a stalk. The stalk, though, is not the corn. The stalk produces corn, and the corn is just that, corn.

In the same way, the seeds of the Gospel are found as early as Genesis 3:15. Various covenants are made and can be likened to various parts of the plant as it grows. The Adamic Covenant gave rise to the Noahic Covenant which gave rise to the Abrahamic Covenant which gave rise to the Mosaic Covenant which gave rise to the Davidic Covenant. The D.C. would be like the stalk of corn. It isn't corn yet, but it is the final stage. From the D.C., the New Covenant, or Messianic Covenant, is issued. Now, the old covenants have been fulfilled and superseded. Our faith isn't built on those. It is built on this totally new plant . . . the plant has brought forth its fruit, and that fruit produces a totally new thing. It is that new thing that we are grafted into. You see, the previous convenants were all a part of the process. The New Covenant is part of the result.

Therefore, it is improper to say that Israel "lost" their salvation. They were in the same boat as everyone else the day that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. If they wanted to be saved, they had to believe in Him. Paul even says that in Romans 11 (see verse 23). Don't put too much emphasis on the word "again" in that verse. Yes, they were grafted in before and they no longer are, but remember, we are talking about a totally different plant--a totally different covenant. They have never been grafted into this particular truth. They were grafted in once before into the family of God in the way that God then provided. That has changed.

In any case, you'll see that in this framework, we don't have a problem with OSAS. Once you are grafted you are grafted. 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.

Anyway, that can get really, really, really deep . . . dispensationalism is a hot topic. I have to study more on it myself. Everything above is sort of my basic understanding. I'm sure there are parts I have misunderstood and others that I have flat wrong, but I do know that is the gist, and it's the way my theology works in general.

God bless

[BavarianWheels]

In the same way, the seeds of the Gospel are found as early as Genesis 3:15. Various covenants are made and can be likened to various parts of the plant as it grows. The Adamic Covenant gave rise to the Noahic Covenant which gave rise to the Abrahamic Covenant which gave rise to the Mosaic Covenant which gave rise to the Davidic Covenant.

I would "argue" the covenant(s) have always been the same...and remain so even today!

The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.

The faith in God's promise (Christ now) has been the Gospel from the moment God "found" Adam and Eve naked. Prior to there ever being J.E.W. as a people. The "Israel" of the NT is a spritual Israel...one that is lead by the Spirit and not by the sinful nature. There is no Jew nor Gentile, male or female...this line of Scripture (Galations 3:28 ) does away with a dispensational salvation. The faithful are new creations, new creatures.

God is not a racist!

It's not like Led Zeppelin sang, "Yes there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run..."

This is a lie!
.
.

[Jac3510]

Haha, like I said, it's dispensationalism, Bav. We'd have to start a new thread on that. Suffice it to say here that I believe God DOES distinguish between Jew and Gentile, that Jews have a special place in the eyes of God, and that God has not forsaken the Jews as a people. They will be preserved, and they will have a particularly special place in the Mill. Kingdom, but not in the New Creation. I further believe that the covenants are the same, but that they have been fulfilled and we are therefore no longer obliged to follow them. The only thing left to be done is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant which is to the JEWISH people (ultimately, Jewish Christians, because they are the ones who will be "grafted in"), not to Gentiles, saved or not.

All I want to point out here is that all of the above positions are very well defendable. If you'd like, I can start a thread up on it. We'll have to touch on millenialism again, but that's just part of it. In the meantime, I still back everything I say, but I won't be defending that particular position here.

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
Can a person who's accepted Christ at one point in their life, lived a seemingly Christian life for some years, fall into some depression as a result of some psychological trauma, and ultimately commits suicide...is this person still saved?

Is suicide ok?
.
.