Once saved always saved (OSAS) debunked

[stonesoffire]

The parable of the sower is the in between.

 

[Gideon300]

Does calling the prodigal son previously "dead" and "lost" look like he was already saved?

I think not. Some obviously have very little understanding

He was a son. That relationship never changed. The parable is not about the sons anyway. It is to show the heart of the father, who never turned against his son, who had not one harsh word to say to him on his return. We see God's heart towards His people who rebel and go the wrong way. His love does not change. The elder brother? A self righteous man, so obnoxious that the servants didn't even bother to let him know that his brother was back.

 

[stonesoffire]

So lovely to see you again

thank you Magenta. Not many of us oldies left are there?

 

[Icedaisey]

No, Lord Jesus was in a battle. You know, like in war. You win wars or you are defeated. Lord Jesus won. If you don't believe me, check out the definition in a dictionary.

No need. You're mistaken.
Jesus arrival as Savior was foretold even in the OT.
It is we who do battle and not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6:12)

Jesus was The Word made flesh.God. God is Sovereign over his creation. He knows the end from the beginning. To imply Jesus won, that Salvation may be available to this lost world is to imply there was a contest in the beginning, with no foreseeable outcome until its conclusion.

Jesus mission from his being begat by God in Mary's womb unto the ascension, was purposed by God's grace to bring a new covenant.

There was no battle even during Jesus' fast of 40 days in the dessert. Satan there never had a chance. Even though he wasn't certain Jesus was Messiah, God, The Word made flesh, the Son of God.
Which is why he would say before giving every challenge to Jesus resolve, "If you be the Son of God...."

 

[Magenta]

He was a son. That relationship never changed. The parable is not about the sons anyway. It is to show the heart of the father, who never turned against his son, who had not one harsh word to say to him on his return. We see God's heart towards His people who rebel and go the wrong way. His love does not change. The elder brother? A self righteous man, so obnoxious that the servants didn't even bother to let him know that his brother was back.

I agree that the parable shows God's love

Still does not change the rather salient FACT that an already saved person is not referred to as "lost" or "dead"

 

[Icedaisey]

The man's son is not being called a son of God. You assume much, as I said

I know what you said.
You day that because you know very little.
And are obstinate and opposed to learning what can help you overcome that condition. Sad indeed.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
No we're not told that. Read it for yourself.

Does calling the prodigal son previously "dead" and "lost" look like he was already saved?

I think not. Some obviously have very little understanding

Suit yourself, but it is clear in the parable that the prodigal WAS a son at the beginning and throughout the parable. He never lost his sonship.

In fact, the parable isn't even about salvation. It's a teaching about confession of sin and repentance for restoration of fellowship.

Those who believe that the parable is about losing and regaining salvation have very little understanding.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The man's son is not being called a son of God. You assume much, as I said

Missing the point. The prodigal WAS the son of the father. Paralleling the believer's same relationship with our heavenly Father.

Just as a son cannot undo his relationship with his father, meaning once a son, always a son. The same is true spiritually. When God the Father gave us new birth, we are PERMANENTLY His children.

Why would God use familial terminology in our relationship to Him but leave out the PERMANENT part?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I agree that the parable shows God's love

Still does not change the rather salient FACT that an already saved person is not referred to as "lost" or "dead"

It sure does when the issue is fellowship, not relationship.

Chew on that one for a while. Do you understand the difference between the two?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I know what you said.
You day that because you know very little.
And are obstinate and opposed to learning what can help you overcome that condition. Sad indeed.

You really have a knack for being hyper-critical and mean spirited. How about calming down a bit and focusing on issues.

 

[Magenta]

FreeGrace2 said:
No we're not told that. Read it for yourself.
Suit yourself, but it is clear in the parable that the prodigal WAS a son at the beginning and throughout the parable. He never lost his sonship.

In fact, the parable isn't even about salvation. It's a teaching about confession of sin and repentance for restoration of fellowship.

Those who believe that the parable is about losing and regaining salvation have very little understanding.

Right. So tell icedaisey that.

 

[Magenta]

It sure does when the issue is fellowship, not relationship.

Chew on that one for a while. Do you understand the difference between the two?

Are you now saying the parable is about salvation?

And that lost dead people are saved?

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said:
It sure does when the issue is fellowship, not relationship.

Chew on that one for a while. Do you understand the difference between the two?

Are you now saying the parable is about salvation?

No, of course not. I wish you had answered my question. Maybe you don't, given your response to my question.

The difference between relationship and fellowship is this:

The relationship between parent (God) and son (believer) is permanent. Just like the physical relationship between fathers and sons.

However, fellowship deals with the state of the relationship. If a child gets sideways with his father, there is no fellowship.

Given Psa 66:18, how can a believer have fellowship with the Lord when they have unconfessed sin in their lives? God is not listening to them. That's about loss of fellowship, not loss of relationship.

The problem is that too many people can't distinguish between relationship and fellowship.

And that lost dead people are saved?

I explained that. in the parable the father described the fellowship with his son as dead and lost. Which it was.

Until the son confessed his sin and repented and got up from the pig sty and returned to the father.

If one considers the parable to be about salvation, then Jesus was teaching how to save yourself by your own means.

iow, the prodigal "came to his senses" and got out of the pig sty and walked back to the father. That's all human effort.

So the parable cannot be about salvation.

If people would apply the Berean method of Bible study, they wouldn't be so easily led astray by faulty teaching.

The Bereans "searched the Scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true". Now, instead of "Paul", put in your fav Bible teacher and see how much they agree with Scripture.

There is simply no way to conclude that Jesus was teaching about salvation or loss of it.

Instead, it was all about confession of sin and repentance. Which is exactly what the prodigal did.

Luke 15-
17 “When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have food to spare, and here I am starving to death!
18 I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you.
19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired servants.’

Red words in v.17 notes that he FINALLY got around to actually thinking things through.
Green words in v.18 refer to repentance, or a change of mind and going back to where he came from.
Blue words in v.18 refer to his confession of his sin.

I included v.19 to show that the prodigal went too far in his conclusions. He requested a demotion from son to servant. And my point is that the father didn't let him get that out. In the middle of the son's confession the father interrupted him so he didn't get to say v.19, even though he intended to.

I believe that Jesus was teaching that what the son wanted to say to the father is stupid and doesn't need to be said.

20 So he got up and went to his father. “But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.
21 “The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’
22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet

v.20 shows the father's response to his son's repentance by coming back.
v.21 is the son's confession and acknowledgement that he WASN'T worthy to be called son.

v.22 shows the father's interruption by the "but".

 

[Ogom]

Are you now saying the parable is about salvation?

And that lost dead people are saved?

parables were so that people would hear and not understand. like a story. a small one.

like a small voice... very faint... the Spirit.

 

[Evmur]

Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and,
"A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."
2 Peter 2:22

because they are dogs and they are sows ... we's born again, sons and daughters of the most high God.

 

[Justified]

Magenta said:
Where are we told in the parable of the prodigal son, that either son was already saved?

I would love to see it...

Rather than circular arguments, let's let the text do the explaining.

This is how the parable opens:
Luke 15:11 - Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons.

So, from the start we see a PERMANENT relationship. That of father and son. A relationship that cannot be undone.

Response from the father when he saw his idiot prodigal son returning:
20 - So he got up and went to his father. “But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

This is the father's explanation for his own actions toward this prodigal:
24 - For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate.

He says "this son of mine". The relationship was intact. But fellowship was broken, lost, undone when the idiot left the father.

So the father was describing loss and death of fellowship in v. 24. But with fellowship restored, his son was "alive to him again".

The parable is about confession of sin and repentance which restores fellowship between father and son.

The prodigal was a son at the beginning of the parables, throughout the parable, and at the end of the parable.

He never lost his sonship. Once a son, always a son. Hm. OSAS.

I think you missed an important point in this story. The younger son took all that fell to him and left. The father did not stop him from going. When the son found himself in dire straits he decided to return to his home. The father did not have to take him back but did out of love for a lost son.
Notice that the son made the choice to leave and also made the choice to return. Although the father loved the son if the son had not confessed his sins but instead had said well you had to take be back because I am your son how do you think the story would have gone.
Do you really think that God will accept back those that have repudiated their faith in Christ Jesus if they do not repent. Yes God loves but He has also set a condition of salvation, FAITH.
Also note that even though the father loved the son if the son had never come back he would still be lost. So this does not support OSAS

 

[Magenta]

I think you missed an important point in this story. The younger son took all that fell to him and left. The father did not stop him from going. When the son found himself in dire straits he decided to return to his home. The father did not have to take him back but did out of love for a lost son.
Notice that the son made the choice to leave and also made the choice to return. Although the father loved the son if the son had not confessed his sins but instead had said well you had to take be back because I am your son how do you think the story would have gone.
Do you really think that God will accept back those that have repudiated their faith in Christ Jesus if they do not repent. Yes God loves but He has also set a condition of salvation, FAITH.
Also note that even though the father loved the son if the son had never come back he would still be lost. So this does not support OSAS

The question had nothing to do with any of that. Erroneously assuming while you overlook the fact of what the discussion I was involved in actually pertained to does not do you any favors. To wit: It was claimed the son was already saved. I asked for a Scripture verse that showed that. What did I get instead? A lot of hot air, deflections, and false accusations. Are saved people called "dead" and "lost"?

 

[Icedaisey]

The man's son is not being called a son of God. You assume much, as I said

And you know little, as I said.
The father's remark about the prodigal being dead? Easily understood.
The man who strays from the path of understanding will rest in the assembly of the dead. Proverbs 21,:16

Which is why the son, who ventured out into the world later returned to the father, repented, and was yet still welcomed as the son returned to the father.

While his brother, who worked and kept his father's commands was upset at the father's reaction to his prodigal son.

Now to your understanding of the prodigal parable.

Show in scripture where the sinner is in the house of the father and is able to squander the grace the father gave them?

What inheritance of the father do those dead in their sins have ?

 

[TMS]

And you know little, as I said.
The father's remark about the prodigal being dead? Easily understood.
The man who strays from the path of understanding will rest in the assembly of the dead. Proverbs 21,:16

Which is why the son, who ventured out into the world later returned to the father, repented, and was yet still welcomed as the son returned to the father.

While his brother, who worked and kept his father's commands was upset at the father's reaction to his prodigal son.

Now to your understanding of the prodigal parable.

Show in scripture where the sinner is in the house of the father and is able to squander the grace the father gave them?

What inheritance of the father do those dead in their sins have ?

the prodigal son is the children of God that realize their sinfulness and repent and return to God. By grace God accepts us. Those that were lost but are found saved by grace.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I was a prodigal son for 5 years. Due to circumstances in my life I walked away. I was dead to god. Because he could not bless me, I was not in a place where I could do anything. I was left on my own. And I praise God for that. Because his discipline and the loss of his love and blessings is why I returned.

I never stopped believing in him for salvation. I lost faith in his work in my life