Do you believe in (OSAS) Once Saved, Always Saved?

[ResidentAlien]

because it is not a simple argument.

if you are for whatever reason unable to read more than a few lines of text, just read the bolded chapter titles. those alone are enough to refute what you are presenting to be Augustine's view.

I don't think it's that complicated. I think you just want to blow smoke. I seriously doubt you yourself read anything more than the chapter headings.

 

[posthuman]

it is a good rule of thumb that a person who hates something is not a reliable source of information about that something.

they will inevitably paint it in the worst possible light, omitting details that justify it and even going so far as adding spurious details that aren't even a factual aspect of it.
just like me with OSAS. i hate the term. i think it is a false strawman that denies the power and work of God, purposefully so, so that those who hate God's faithfulness to complete the work He begins in a person can give themselves opportunity to deny that very faithfulness of God, and instead assign glory to themselves.
you should not take my word for what "OSAS" means -- ask those people who came up with the term what exactly they are talking about.


let me put that into practice:

you seem to hate the security of the believer: tell me your definition of "OSAS" ?

 

[BeeThePeace]

So we're all a bunch of robots then?

Read the scriptures.

 

[posthuman]

I don't think it's that complicated. I think you just want to blow smoke. I seriously doubt you yourself read anything more than the chapter headings.

i am not blowing smoke.

i provided Augustine's own words.

read them.

why are you demanding i give you cliff notes when i've already given you and everyone who reads this thread all the fullness?
isn't it because you yourself are too --what, lazy?? -- to read it? it's right there. scroll up. spend 30 minutes in thought before you just reply immediately with more "i can't be bothered"

 

[posthuman]

I don't think it's that complicated. I think you just want to blow smoke. I seriously doubt you yourself read anything more than the chapter headings.

here, friend, is this too much text for you to read?

The Lord has known them that are His. 2 Timothy 2:19 The faith of these, which works by love, either actually does not fail at all, or, if there are any whose faith fails, it is restored before their life is ended, and the iniquity which had intervened is done away, and perseverance even to the end is allotted to them.
​

let me know if any of the words are too big; i'll consult a thesaurus and try to simplify it for you.

 

[ResidentAlien]

i am not blowing smoke.

i provided Augustine's own words.

read them.

why are you demanding i give you cliff notes when i've already given you and everyone who reads this thread all the fullness?
isn't it because you yourself are too --what, lazy?? -- to read it? it's right there. scroll up. spend 30 minutes in thought before you just reply immediately with more "i can't be bothered"

I'm not demanding anything, I'm trying to help you. You seem to have a point or points to make. Wouldn't it make more sense to condense your ideas to a few selected parts? It would work to your advantage.

Why should I read the whole thing trying to glean what you want me to know when you could simply post it in a few minutes? As I've said many times before, I'm no good at guessing games; I find them quite boring.

 

[peldom10]

Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.) wrote against it in the first century, around the year 80.

Others, too, from years well before the 60s. This is from the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646):

XVII. Of the Perseverance of the Saints
1. They, whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit,
can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere
therein to the end, and be eternally saved. (Phil. 1:6, 2 Pet. 1:10, 1 John 3:9, 1 Pet. 1:5,9)

2. This perseverance of the saints depends not upon their own free will, but upon the
immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love
of God the Father; (2 Tim. 2:18–19, Jer. 31:3) upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession
of Jesus Christ, (Heb. 10:10, 14, Heb. 13:20–21, Heb. 9:12–15, Rom. 8:33–39, John 17:11, 24,
Luke 22:32, Heb. 7:25) the abiding of the Spirit, and of the seed of God within them,
(John 14:16–17, 1 John 2:27, 1 John 3:9) and the nature of the covenant of grace: (Jer. 32:40)
from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof. (John 10:28, 2 Thess. 3:3, 1 John 2:19)

3. Nevertheless, they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency
of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into
grievous sins; (Matt. 26:70, 72, 74) and, for a time, continue therein: (Ps. 51 title, Ps. 51:1)
whereby they incur God’s displeasure, (Isa. 64:5, 7, 9, 2 Sam. 11:27) and grieve His Holy Spirit,
(Eph. 4:30) come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, (Ps. 51:8, 10,
12, Rev. 2:4, Cant. 5:2–4, 6) have their hearts hardened, (Isa. 63:17, Mark 6:52, Mark 16:14) and
their consciences wounded; (Ps. 32:3–4, Ps. 51:8) hurt and scandalize others, (2 Sam. 12:14)
and bring temporal judgments upon themselves. (Ps. 89:31–32, 1 Cor. 11:32)

Your assumptive pronouncement that it "did not exists prior
to the 1960's" as being "telling," tells us you are sadly uninformed.

You purposely apply transference.
I spoke of the Christian community adopting the interpretation since the 1960's, ......it stands.

 

[BeeThePeace]

I'm not demanding anything, I'm trying to help you. You seem to have a point or points to make. Wouldn't it make more sense to condense your ideas to a few selected parts? It would work to your advantage.

Why should I read the whole thing trying to glean what you want me to know when you could simply post it in a few minutes? As I've said many times before, I'm no good at guessing games; I find them quite boring.

Caring enough to take the time to educate yourself isn't boring. Thinking others need to do for you what you clearly don't care to do for yourself is tragic . Blaming others for that fault is pathetic.

 

[ResidentAlien]

here, friend, is this too much text for you to read?

The Lord has known them that are His. 2 Timothy 2:19 The faith of these, which works by love, either actually does not fail at all, or, if there are any whose faith fails, it is restored before their life is ended, and the iniquity which had intervened is done away, and perseverance even to the end is allotted to them.​

​

Thank you. I don't disagree with what this says. If a person wanders it's possible for them to return. But it doesn't override Augustine's previous point that someone who has been given grace and has been regenerated can of their own free will walk away and thus lose that grace.

Unless you're making some larger point that isn't clear, we're in agreement.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Caring enough to take the time to educate yourself isn't boring. Thinking others need to do for you what you clearly don't care to do for yourself is tragic . Blaming others for that fault is pathetic.

You're right. I'm sorry.

 

[ResidentAlien]

"For when they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, the ones who have actually escaped from those who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage. For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: 'A dog returns to his own vomit,' and, 'a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.' "—2 Peter 2:18-22

I can't think of a worse fate than to have been regenerated and sealed by the Holy Spirit and then return to the mire. It would indeed have been better to never know the way of righteousness in the first place.

 

[posthuman]

Why should I read the whole thing trying to glean what you want me to know when you could simply post it in a few minutes?

because these aren't my points, they are Augustine's.
Augustine saw fit to write quite a bit instead of one meme's-worth.

he lived in a time when lengthy intelligent discussion was valued. today our society doesn't want that; it wants 20 words or less.

i am sorry if i am a bit old-fashioned, but my entire point here is that if you take the time to read all of Augustine's discussion, you will see that the tiny , contextless little snippet you pulled out misrepresents his overall view.

 

[ResidentAlien]

because these aren't my points, they are Augustine's.
Augustine saw fit to write quite a bit instead of one meme's-worth.

he lived in a time when lengthy intelligent discussion was valued. today our society doesn't want that; it wants 20 words or less.

i am sorry if i am a bit old-fashioned, but my entire point here is that if you take the time to read all of Augustine's discussion, you will see that the tiny , contextless little snippet you pulled out misrepresents his overall view.

Honestly it's not important enough to me to read the whole thing. The only thing that interests me is if there's something in there that contradicts what he said in Chapter 9. If he contradicts himself then of course that would be of interest.

 

[posthuman]

Thank you. I don't disagree with what this says. If a person wanders it's possible for them to return. But it doesn't override Augustine's previous point that someone who has been given grace and has been regenerated can of their own free will walk away and thus lose that grace.

Unless you're making some larger point that isn't clear, we're in agreement.

if you take the time to read his whole conversation..

If Calvin got his theology from Augustine, he seriously misunderstood him: "If, however, being already regenerate and justified, he relapses of his own will into an evil life, assuredly he cannot say, I have not received, because of his own free choice to evil he has lost the grace of God, that he had received.—Augustine, On Rebuke and Grace, c. AD 426 or 427, Chapter 9)

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1513.htm

here in your quote, what is he talking about having "received" ?

he separates receiving grace to believe, receiving grace to obey, and receiving grace to persevere in belief and righteousness.
in your quote, he is only talking about someone who received grace to be regenerated, but not grace to obey, and not grace to persevere.

so Augustine is not talking about losing salvation. he is talking about receiving a moderation of dispensation of grace, not to the point of salvation, but to the point of self-condemnation with no viable argument on the part of the person who heard and fell away, to accuse God of injustice.

that part is lost on the reader if they don't read a substantial part of his complex discourse.

 

[posthuman]

You purposely apply transference.
I spoke of the Christian community adopting the interpretation since the 1960's, ......it stands.

dude the concept of perseverance of the saints has been established to have existed in Christian thought since the 60's AD.
so whether you agree with it or not ((even from the beginning many didn't)) it is disingenuous of you to go on saying that this idea didn't appear until some 50 years ago. that's just plain disinformation on your part.

 

[posthuman]

"For when they speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, the ones who have actually escaped from those who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage. For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: 'A dog returns to his own vomit,' and, 'a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.' "—2 Peter 2:18-22

I can't think of a worse fate than to have been regenerated and sealed by the Holy Spirit and then return to the mire. It would indeed have been better to never know the way of righteousness in the first place.

Augustine deals with that by paralleling the parable of the sower and the seeds: saying that God provides the seed, and God created the soil. some receive it initially with joy and then fall away having no root, or being choked out by weeds/idols that supplant the faith they first accepted -- that is not salvation; that is not being saved and then losing it.
that is having no excuse on the day of judgement because what may be know of God was made plain to you, but Christ never knew you - you had no root in Him and did not belong to Him.
Augustine's final analysis is that those whom God saves, He gives everything necessary to complete that salvation, and ensures that it is so. such that anyone who is truly saved can never be lost again even if they stumble. that God who Himself, and Himself alone, begins a work in a person does not fail to complete that work.

 

[Magenta]

You purposely apply transference.
I spoke of the Christian community adopting the interpretation since the 1960's, ......it stands.

Purposefully? I went by what you said. I was purposeful that way, yes.

it is an interpretation of scriptures which did not exists prior to the 1960's....which is telling.

Call it what you want. Anything less than the truth, such as your obfuscation, is a lie. I recognize both.

 

[ResidentAlien]

here in your quote, what is he talking about having "received" ?

he separates receiving grace to believe, receiving grace to obey, and receiving grace to persevere in belief and righteousness.
in your quote, he is only talking about someone who received grace to be regenerated, but not grace to obey, and not grace to persevere.

so Augustine is not talking about losing salvation. he is talking about receiving a moderation of dispensation of grace, not to the point of salvation, but to the point of self-condemnation with no viable argument on the part of the person who heard and fell away, to accuse God of injustice.

that part is lost on the reader if they don't read a substantial part of his complex discourse.

I know when to bow out. When things like "he is talking about receiving a moderation of dispensation of grace, not to the point of salvation, but to the point of self-condemnation with no viable argument on the part of the person who heard and fell away, to accuse God of injustice" start getting thrown out I know it's pointless for me to proceed. Yeah, I don't have a clue what you're talking about.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Augustine deals with that by paralleling the parable of the sower and the seeds: saying that God provides the seed, and God created the soil. some receive it initially with joy and then fall away having no root, or being choked out by weeds/idols that supplant the faith they first accepted -- that is not salvation; that is not being saved and then losing it.
that is having no excuse on the day of judgement because what may be know of God was made plain to you, but Christ never knew you - you had no root in Him and did not belong to Him.
Augustine's final analysis is that those whom God saves, He gives everything necessary to complete that salvation, and ensures that it is so. such that anyone who is truly saved can never be lost again even if they stumble. that God who Himself, and Himself alone, begins a work in a person does not fail to complete that work.

Ya know what, just forget I said anything about Augustine, I'll know better next time. You're probably right. Have a good one.

 

[posthuman]

I know when to bow out. When things like "he is talking about receiving a moderation of dispensation of grace, not to the point of salvation, but to the point of self-condemnation with no viable argument on the part of the person who heard and fell away, to accuse God of injustice" start getting thrown out I know it's pointless for me to proceed. Yeah, I don't have a clue what you're talking about.

That's fair.
Like I said, it's a complex argument. He spends 8,000 words to answer a single question.

No harm
I still love you, and essentially, we agree, like you said earlier.