Oh goody another OSAS thread!
- Thread starter RickyZ
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
E
does not look like he was trying to confuse anything, He stated a few terms, and said if this is what they believe, then pencil me in. (why is it people can not read general statements and understand them? Its NOT THAT HARD)
You people and your war against the GOSPEL of hypergrace have been trying to prove your point for over a year now and failed miserably. You would think you would give up. and stop with these silly attacks such as this. which did nothign to lend to the conversation.
You people and your war against the GOSPEL of hypergrace have been trying to prove your point for over a year now and failed miserably. You would think you would give up. and stop with these silly attacks such as this. which did nothign to lend to the conversation.
E
Yes,, As in another passage using a different example. A dog returns to their vomit. Because he is still a dog. A dog who was made into a new creature will not return to his vomit because he is no longer a dog. and even if he tries the taste is so bad he can not stand it, and it makes him ill. Just like sin to a child of God goves us a bad taste and makes us ill. so we can not continue in it.
E
This is the issue
Thinking eternal life, eternal security is a john calvin doctrine. Its not. ( I heard of OSAS years ago, but I have never followed calvanism)
This is also why there are so many heated discussions.
Instead of a gospel debate, it becomes a calvin (osas) vs Arminian (legalism) vs Catholic (extreme legalism) debate. and lines are drawn and people feel they have to stand their ground.
The same with Hypergrace. People here have labelled anyone who believed in eternal security as hypergrace. so the hate against calvin and prince has people not listening to a word people who believe in eternal security say.
sadly, It there are extremes on both sides.. Which overtake the people who really want to discuss
Thinking eternal life, eternal security is a john calvin doctrine. Its not. ( I heard of OSAS years ago, but I have never followed calvanism)
This is also why there are so many heated discussions.
Instead of a gospel debate, it becomes a calvin (osas) vs Arminian (legalism) vs Catholic (extreme legalism) debate. and lines are drawn and people feel they have to stand their ground.
The same with Hypergrace. People here have labelled anyone who believed in eternal security as hypergrace. so the hate against calvin and prince has people not listening to a word people who believe in eternal security say.
sadly, It there are extremes on both sides.. Which overtake the people who really want to discuss
-
1
- Show all
No sister. I am genuinely confused as to what exactly the definition some people have of hypergrace. People have taken elements that I absolutely agree with, such as eternal security, and ALL sin forgiven, and lumped that in with the prosperity gospel, which I absolutely do not agree with.
That's why it IS important to define.
R
But in this passage the author makes it crystal clear that he is referring to the saved person (Hebrews 10:10,14).
You're not being a very good Berean. You, like so many others, are not reading the Bible for yourself. You are reading what people have written about the Bible and have not tested it for yourself against what the Bible says. I guess the reasoning is these 'learned' mean who are held in high esteem and seem to be educated and spiritual about these things and have been followed and published for decades and centuries then they must know what they are talking about. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It's just interesting that you choose to use a usage of the word 'sanctified' that conveniently makes the passage once saved always saved while the author himself plainly tells us what he means by the person sanctified by the blood of Christ. It's hard to have respect for someone who does that.
No, it does not mean you would have to say that.
'Sanctified' has several uses and meanings in the Bible. The point is, the author of Hebrews tells us himself which one he is referring to, yet it is soundly rejected and ignored in popular teaching in the church in favor of another application and usage of 'sanctified' to suit a predetermined doctrine of 'once saved always saved'.
Look at this:
"23Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful;"-Hebrews 10:23
"do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward."-Hebrews 10:35
These exhortations make it IMPOSSIBLE that vs.39 means they are incapable of going back to unbelief.
No. You did not consider the context. The context tells us in plain words that 'sanctified' means the born again person:
"By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."-Hebrews 10:10
"For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified."-Hebrews 10:14
You are rejecting the plain words of the passage that defines 'sanctified' as someone who has been perfected in Christ (that is, saved) to defend a predetermined doctrine of once saved always saved.
You're not being a very good Berean. You, like so many others, are not reading the Bible for yourself. You are reading what people have written about the Bible and have not tested it for yourself against what the Bible says. I guess the reasoning is these 'learned' mean who are held in high esteem and seem to be educated and spiritual about these things and have been followed and published for decades and centuries then they must know what they are talking about. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It's just interesting that you choose to use a usage of the word 'sanctified' that conveniently makes the passage once saved always saved while the author himself plainly tells us what he means by the person sanctified by the blood of Christ. It's hard to have respect for someone who does that.
No, it does not mean you would have to say that.
'Sanctified' has several uses and meanings in the Bible. The point is, the author of Hebrews tells us himself which one he is referring to, yet it is soundly rejected and ignored in popular teaching in the church in favor of another application and usage of 'sanctified' to suit a predetermined doctrine of 'once saved always saved'.
Look at this:
"23Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful;"-Hebrews 10:23
"do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward."-Hebrews 10:35
These exhortations make it IMPOSSIBLE that vs.39 means they are incapable of going back to unbelief.
No. You did not consider the context. The context tells us in plain words that 'sanctified' means the born again person:
"By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."-Hebrews 10:10
"For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified."-Hebrews 10:14
You are rejecting the plain words of the passage that defines 'sanctified' as someone who has been perfected in Christ (that is, saved) to defend a predetermined doctrine of once saved always saved.
R
Why are you not reading my posts that link to and explain Freegrace/Hypergrace doctrine? The link plainly explains how it is that Freegrace doctrine believes that the believer can go back to unbelief and they are still saved. Surely you've heard of Charles Stanley, right?
The amazing part is, Calvinist, and Calvinist leaning once saved always saved 'P' believers don't defend against it even though it is so completely and utterly in opposition to their own belief that the person who goes back to unbelief was never saved to begin with. That's especially amazing because even by their own admission Calvinists are some of the angriest and most dogmatic and closed off people in the church.
The amazing part is, Calvinist, and Calvinist leaning once saved always saved 'P' believers don't defend against it even though it is so completely and utterly in opposition to their own belief that the person who goes back to unbelief was never saved to begin with. That's especially amazing because even by their own admission Calvinists are some of the angriest and most dogmatic and closed off people in the church.
Why are there Calvinist and Baptist and Catholic and Methodist and Episcopalian and on and on? Why are all that believe in God, love Him and want to serve Him, just be considered Christians> I don't understand what this hyper-grace is either and really don't care to learn. What you have is God's grace and you can't get more hyped up than this. I'm really not into fancy labels that are attached to people depending on what they have been led to believe by the Holy Spirit or what day of the week it is. Discussing scripture in the sincere hope of providing edification is a good thing but constant bickering about minute details of scripture is not productive as it distracts from what is really important.
I told you. I think it's a non-issue. My son can think he isn't my son any more til the cows come home. Doesn't change the FACT that he is my son BY BIRTH, NOT by what he thinks!
One of the most important lessons from the Prodigal son, is that he THOUGHT he had lost his sonship. He was only hoping to come home as a lowly servant. I do not believe our Heavenly Father will leave us. He WILL leave the 99 to go and retrieve the one.
It is true that the Prodigal son STILL knew that his father was THE father, only that he was no longer A son. and that may be the distinction you are making. That some who CLAIMED to know Jesus, not only think they are not a son, but also believe Jesus is not God, or may not even believe that there is a God.
To that I answer the verse you've seen thousands of times here saying that they were never Christians to begin with.
One of the most important lessons from the Prodigal son, is that he THOUGHT he had lost his sonship. He was only hoping to come home as a lowly servant. I do not believe our Heavenly Father will leave us. He WILL leave the 99 to go and retrieve the one.
It is true that the Prodigal son STILL knew that his father was THE father, only that he was no longer A son. and that may be the distinction you are making. That some who CLAIMED to know Jesus, not only think they are not a son, but also believe Jesus is not God, or may not even believe that there is a God.
To that I answer the verse you've seen thousands of times here saying that they were never Christians to begin with.
I am answering the original OP here: Why do I debate OSAS . . . ? 
I believe that believing in OSAS has caused many to lose assurance of salvation or wrestle deeply with assurance. When assurance is based on a past event of putting faith in Christ, one may always be wondering, "Did I do that correctly?" And then if a person's works are not in order, than OSAS supporters may say - "You were never saved in the first place". I much prefer (and this is what I do) to base my security on the fact that today I am believing on and trusting in Jesus Christ for my salvation.
I believe that believing in OSAS has caused many to lose assurance of salvation or wrestle deeply with assurance. When assurance is based on a past event of putting faith in Christ, one may always be wondering, "Did I do that correctly?" And then if a person's works are not in order, than OSAS supporters may say - "You were never saved in the first place". I much prefer (and this is what I do) to base my security on the fact that today I am believing on and trusting in Jesus Christ for my salvation.
E
I think it would be so much better if we discussed instead of doctrines, topics. People see doctrinal names and automatically assume they know what its about with out asking.
Threads that have words like OSAS, Hypergrace, Arminian, Calvin etc are just lighting fuses for wars. and does not lend to help with discussion.
Threads that have words like OSAS, Hypergrace, Arminian, Calvin etc are just lighting fuses for wars. and does not lend to help with discussion.