Once saved always saved (OSAS) debunked

[mailmandan]

Sure I’d love to answer your questions.

can you tell me what a living faith is? I think I get what you’re asking, but I don’t recall seeing a particular kind of diary distinguished as living in the Bible and can you give me an example?

The opposite of dead is alive. In Ephesians 2:5, we read - even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved).... 8-9 by grace through faith, not works, 10 created in Christ Jesus for good works. Christ is the source of life in our faith. Apart from Him we can do nothing. Faith must be alive first before it can produce works. Just as a tree must be alive first before it can produce fruit. Life flows through faith (root of salvation) and produces works, just as life flows through the root of a tree and produces fruit.

As far as a dead tree producing fruit to become a living tree, I’m thinking the answer is a solid no there.

Would wouldn't it be a solid no for both answers? How can something that is dead produce anything?

 

[Runningman]

I did not say it was sin. You keep missing the point. You are so misguided to deny that people are born in the
state of being a natural person in need of spiritual rebirth in order to be reconciled to God and escape the second
death. The Bible teaches this front to back and you deny it. Nobody should take guidance from you on this matter.

The Bible doesn’t teach total depravity. So that’s probably the greatest weakness of the position you seem to be supporting.

My position that Jesus, being tempted in all ways that we are and yet without sin, wasn’t tempted to spread lies straight from the womb, is easily Biblical.

 

[notonmywatch]

Speaking of sighs...

I'm just going to say one thing here, and I'm saying it just in case anybody who might have lost an infant or young child has the misfortune of reading certain portions of this thread some day.

Infants or young children who die without any knowledge of good and evil are NOT condemned by God as sinners or as "children of wrath".

I'll just throw out a few verses here to make my point, and then the rest of you can go back to arguing with each other while the harvest perishes in the field.

Deuteronomy 1

39Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

Here, God didn't bring judgment upon the Israelites' little ones and children, as he did with their fathers, because they had no knowledge between good and evil, and, therefore, they were not held accountable for the sins of their fathers.

James 4

17Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

It's the same exact principle as what was written in Deuteronomy 1:39.

Psalm 106

34They did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the LORD commanded them: 35But were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works. 36And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them. 37Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, 38And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.

When the Israelites sacrificed their sons and daughters unto devils and the idols of Canaan, they shed INNOCENT BLOOD, and not guilty blood, and the land was polluted therewith.

I could easily go on, but, again, I'm writing this solely for the potential benefits of any parents who might have lost an infant or a young child, and who might come away with the wrong impression, based upon certain things that have been stated in this thread, that their infant or child is somehow in hell.

 

[Runningman]

The opposite of dead is alive. In Ephesians 2:5, we read - even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved).... 8-9 by grace through faith, not works, 10 created in Christ Jesus for good works. Christ is the source of life in our faith. Apart from Him we can do nothing. Faith must be alive first before it can produce works. Just as a tree must be alive first before it can produce fruit. Life flows through faith (root of salvation) and produces works, just as life flows through the root of a tree and produces fruit.

Thank you and I seem to understand your question more clearly.

I think Jesus used terms like good tree or bad tree where there may be varying degrees of goodness or badness, rather than a dead tree or an alive tree where it’s definitely an either/or dichotomy.

For example, Jesus said “If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts…” and “If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?”

See these bad trees have some good fruit, even if just a little bit? Goodness and love are good fruits.

I think what separates us from the atheist charities is the reason why we do what we do. We do what we do because our faith is alive and we aim to serve the living God.

So my answer to your first question, if I’m understanding it correctly, is possibly a yes. I say possibly a yes because I don’t think you meant dead faith but rather weak or poor faith. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Runningman]

Speaking of sighs...

I'm just going to say one thing here, and I'm saying it just in case anybody who might have lost an infant or young child has the misfortune of reading certain portions of this thread some day.

Infants or young children who die without any knowledge of good and evil are NOT condemned by God as sinners or as "children of wrath".

I'll just throw out a few verses here to make my point, and then the rest of you can go back to arguing with each other while the harvest perishes in the field.

Deuteronomy 1

39Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.

Here, God didn't bring judgment upon the Israelites' little ones and children, as he did with their fathers, because they had no knowledge between good and evil, and, therefore, they were not held accountable for the sins of their fathers.

James 4

17Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

It's the same exact principle as what was written in Deuteronomy 1:39.

Psalm 106

34They did not destroy the nations, concerning whom the LORD commanded them: 35But were mingled among the heathen, and learned their works. 36And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them. 37Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, 38And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.

When the Israelites sacrificed their sons and daughters unto devils and the idols of Canaan, they shed INNOCENT BLOOD, and not guilty blood, and the land was polluted therewith.

I could easily go on, but, again, I'm writing this solely for the potential benefits of any parents who might have lost an infant or a young child, and who might come away with the wrong impression, based upon certain things that have been stated in this thread, that their infant or child is somehow in hell.

Amen. Thanks for sharing. May God bless those little ones with eternal peace and safety.

 

[mailmandan]

Thank you and I seem to understand your question more clearly.

I think Jesus used terms like good tree or bad tree where there may be varying degrees of goodness or badness, rather than a dead tree or an alive tree where it’s definitely an either/or dichotomy.

For example, Jesus said “If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts…” and “If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?”

See these bad trees have some good fruit, even if just a little bit? Goodness and love are good fruits.

I think what separates us from the atheist charities is the reason why we do what we do. We do what we do because our faith is alive and we aim to serve the living God.

So my answer to your first question, if I’m understanding it correctly, is possibly a yes. I say possibly a yes because I don’t think you meant dead faith but rather weak or poor faith. Please correct me if I am wrong.

For Jesus it's either a good tree (which represents a believer) or a bad tree (which represents an unbeliever). Believers are made alive with Christ and unbelievers are dead in their trespasses/sins. (Ephesians 2:5)

Now according to Jesus it's an either/or dichotomy. Matthew 7:17 - Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

Faith is either alive (regardless of how weak or strong) or dead.

 

[Mem]

Heavy sigh at this ongoing debate. Can it be both..

HE and only He is our Salvation, let's keep abiding in His truth. Let's endure, knowing He is Faithful.

Let's just praise His Holy Name and Give Him all the Glory, never taking our responsibility lightly to endure!!!

I don't know how many times I've voiced my perspective in agreement with someone and they've replied as if I were arguing with them. Haaa!
Idk, maybe my boobs are too distracting. Ever enduring and don't see that changing anytime soon.

 

[Runningman]

For Jesus it's either a good tree (which represents a believer) or a bad tree (which represents an unbeliever). Believers are made alive with Christ and unbelievers are dead in their trespasses/sins. (Ephesians 2:5)

Now according to Jesus it's an either/or dichotomy. Matthew 7:17 - Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

Faith is either alive (regardless of how weak or strong) or dead.

Doesn't seem to be what Jesus was saying exactly. He did generalize a bit, but then later gave examples of evil people doing good things or bearing good fruit. Of course, I am not viewing this through a total depravity lens. (I am not saying that's what you're doing, as I don't know.) I just see Jesus didn't see anyone as 100% evil or 100% good. He described a kind of spectrum rather than people being absolutely a dead tree or an alive tree. That's how I see God views people as well. Jesus said and spoke all he saw his Father do.

 

[Beckie]

Who does the saving man or God?

 

[Magenta]

The Bible doesn’t teach total depravity. So that’s probably the greatest weakness of the position you seem to be supporting.

My position that Jesus, being tempted in all ways that we are and yet without sin, wasn’t tempted to spread lies straight from the womb, is easily Biblical.

You denied that the Bible teaches that man is born lost. Your position is wrong. Front to back, man's rebellion, man's disobedience, and man's waywardness is intricately, intimately, and irrevocably woven into the Scripture narratives. We have not been discussing total depravity. Stop trying to change the subject. Man is born into a state known as the natural man. The natural man is in need of a spiritual rebirth in order to be reconciled to God and escape the second death. There is no weakness in my position at all. Your position is wrong, and your are deluded if you think you are right, which, I did see you say you are right in all you say. You are also deceived if you think you are equipped to guide others. If you cannot get that much right about Scripture, you have no business trying to guide anyone in any matter pertaining to Scripture.

 

[cv5]

The Bible doesn’t teach total depravity. So that’s probably the greatest weakness of the position you seem to be supporting.

My position that Jesus, being tempted in all ways that we are and yet without sin, wasn’t tempted to spread lies straight from the womb, is easily Biblical.

Your whole thesis seems to revolve around the notion that men are born intrinsically "good", are not born into judgement and condemnation, that men really don't need Jesus that badly (only the really REALLY wayward individuals), do not need to be "born again", and can be fine all by themselves if their good outweighs their bad, they endeavor to do "good works", and diligently cultivate and nurture their "better half".

If this is an accurate assessment, then your thesis would be called "apostasy" in most Chrisitan circles.

 

[Runningman]

You denied that the Bible teaches that man is born lost. Your position is wrong. Front to back, man's rebellion, man's disobedience, and man's waywardness is intricately, intimately, and irrevocably woven into the Scripture narratives. We have not been discussing total depravity. Stop trying to change the subject. Man is born into a state known as the natural man. The natural man is in need of a spiritual rebirth in order to be reconciled to God and escape the second death. There is no weakness in my position at all. Your position is wrong, and your are deluded if you think you are right, which, I did see you say you are right in all you say. You are also deceived if you think you are equipped to guide others. If you cannot get that much right about Scripture, you have no business trying to guide anyone in any matter pertaining to Scripture.

You're wrong. I gave you a chance to figure this out with questions in a discussion setting, but we're past the point of discussion it seems.

Now, I'm not going to ask you; I'm going to tell you.

You have no business speaking on this matter until you learn the foundations of the Bible regarding what sin is. Now I'll proceed to correct you and hopefully steer any curious readers away from your false doctrines.

Romans 9
11Yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad, in order that God’s plan of election might stand,

It's clear here that immediately upon being born that people have not done anything good or bad.

The way people are "wicked" at birth is their inclination. That's a big difference between what you're saying, which contradicts the Word of God, and what I am saying. I'm sorry Magenta, but babies don't go to hell as tough as a pill that may be for you to swallow.

People may be "children of wrath" but, again, this refers to their inclination toward sin, not that they are born scheming lies and plotting murder.

 

[Runningman]

Your whole thesis seems to revolve around the notion that men are born intrinsically "good", are not born into judgement and condemnation, that men really don't need Jesus that badly (only the really REALLY wayward individuals), do not need to be "born again", and can be fine all by themselves if their good outweighs their bad, they endeavor to do "good works", and diligently cultivate and nurture their "better half".

If this is an accurate assessment, then your thesis would be called "apostasy" in most Chrisitan circles.

That's called a strawman argument. You're literally trying to refute something I never said.

 

[notonmywatch]

You denied that the Bible teaches that man is born lost. Your position is wrong. Front to back, man's rebellion, man's disobedience, and man's waywardness is intricately, intimately, and irrevocably woven into the Scripture narratives. We have not been discussing total depravity. Stop trying to change the subject. Man is born into a state known as the natural man. The natural man is in need of a spiritual rebirth in order to be reconciled to God and escape the second death. There is no weakness in my position at all. Your position is wrong, and your are deluded if you think you are right, which, I did see you say you are right in all you say. You are also deceived if you think you are equipped to guide others. If you cannot get that much right about Scripture, you have no business trying to guide anyone in any matter pertaining to Scripture.

Hi, Magenta.

I have a question for you, and it's only a sincere question. In other words, it's not any sort of veiled accusation or anything like that. I'm truly just trying to understand your position while hopefully giving others who are reading here some food for thought as well.

I recently posted how that infants and children without any knowledge of good and evil are not under God's judgment, and you responded with a heart or "friendly" emoticon, so I'm assuming that you agree with what I said. If so, then how does that fall in line with your comment that "the natural man is in need of a spiritual rebirth in order to be reconciled to God AND ESCAPE THE SECOND DEATH?

I definitely agree that those who have a knowledge of good and evil need to be born again in order to escape the second death, but are you willing to make a concession for infants and young children who don't possess this type of knowledge? I'm asking because it seems to me that it is those who haven't been willing to make such a concession are the originators of such unbiblical doctrines as infant baptism. In other words, if a newborn isn't baptized and then it dies, then it will go to hell or face the second death in the lake of fire.

Could you please elaborate on how you feel about this?

Thank you.

Again, although I'm asking this question of you, I'm also hoping to give several other posters here some pause before they go off the theological deep end themselves, if they haven't already.

 

[cv5]

The Bible doesn’t teach total depravity. So that’s probably the greatest weakness of the position you seem to be supporting.

My position that Jesus, being tempted in all ways that we are and yet without sin, wasn’t tempted to spread lies straight from the womb, is easily Biblical.

The question that you have failed to raise is why Jesus HAD to be BORN sinless and also REMAIN that way.
And why does the Bible contrast the impeccable Last Adam with the fallen first Adam framed in this stark irreducible dichotomy.

That being said....where does that leave the rest of us? You say we are "on a spectrum" and somewhere in the middle. Yet the Bible says that all the sins of all men MUST be dealt with, and that ONE sin of ONE man condemned the entire race eternally. And that SIN ITSELF had to be condemned.

Rom 5:15
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Rom 8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

And despite the best intentions of the most diligent ("good"?) Jew, all of his efforts are evidently in vain....

Rom 3:20
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

 

[cv5]

That's called a strawman argument. You're literally trying to refute something I never said.

No....I am condensing most of what you have said, then postulating an hypothetical analysis based on historical precedent.

 

[notonmywatch]

The question that you have failed to raise is why Jesus HAD to be BORN sinless and also REMAIN that way.
And why does the Bible contrast the impeccable Last Adam with the fallen first Adam framed in this stark irreducible dichotomy.

That being said....where does that leave the rest of us? You say we are "on a spectrum" and somewhere in the middle. Yet the Bible says that all the sins of all men MUST be dealt with, and that ONE sin of ONE man condemned the entire race eternally. And that SIN ITSELF had to be condemned.

Rom 5:15
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Rom 8:3
For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

And despite the best intentions of the most diligent ("good"?) Jew, all of his efforts are evidently in vain....

Rom 3:20
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Do you believe that newborn babies who die go to hell?

 

[Magenta]

Hi, Magenta.

I have a question for you, and it's only a sincere question. In other words, it's not any sort of veiled accusation or anything like that. I'm truly just trying to understand your position while hopefully giving others who are reading here some food for thought as well.

I recently posted how that infants and children without any knowledge of good and evil are not under God's judgment, and you responded with a heart or "friendly" emoticon, so I'm assuming that you agree with what I said. If so, then how does that fall in line with your comment that "the natural man is in need of a spiritual rebirth in order to be reconciled to God AND ESCAPE THE SECOND DEATH?

I definitely agree that those who have a knowledge of good and evil need to be born again in order to escape the second death, but are you willing to make a concession for infants and young children who don't possess this type of knowledge? I'm asking because it seems to me that it is those who haven't been willing to make such a concession are the originators of such unbiblical doctrines as infant baptism. In other words, if a newborn isn't baptized and then it dies, then it will go to hell or face the second death in the lake of fire.

Could you please elaborate on how you feel about this?

Thank you.

Again, although I'm asking this question of you, I'm also hoping to give several other posters here some pause before they go off the theological deep end themselves, if they haven't already.

Hello Notonmywatch Yes, I did see your post and understand why you made it. Let's start with, our God is an awesome God! He is loving, merciful, and just. Amen? Moving on to my point, and to clarify, this particular line of discussion with Rm is taking place because of his denial of what Scripture teaches in this regard. That is: Every single person is born in a state known Scripturally as the natural man. Agree? The natural man as taught by Scripture does not and cannot love God. Agree? The natural man is rebellious toward God. Agree? This state of being is also known as "lost." Agree? The natural man cannot accept the things of God. Agree? They are foolishness to him. Agree? The supernatural work of God is to change the natural man into a spiritual one, that they may be reconciled to Him and attain to life ever after. Agree? For some this happens at a fairly early age. Romans one details what happens to what is probably the majority of people for a time. I was almost fifty before I laid down my opposition to God and surrendered my life to Him. In the final analysis, at the end of this age when all are resurrected for judgment, how God deals with those who die very young, I trust His judgment, I trust His goodness, I trust His wisdom, I trust His mercy, and I trust His grace.

 

[cv5]

Hi, Magenta.

I have a question for you, and it's only a sincere question. In other words, it's not any sort of veiled accusation or anything like that. I'm truly just trying to understand your position while hopefully giving others who are reading here some food for thought as well.

I recently posted how that infants and children without any knowledge of good and evil are not under God's judgment, and you responded with a heart or "friendly" emoticon, so I'm assuming that you agree with what I said. If so, then how does that fall in line with your comment that "the natural man is in need of a spiritual rebirth in order to be reconciled to God AND ESCAPE THE SECOND DEATH?

I definitely agree that those who have a knowledge of good and evil need to be born again in order to escape the second death, but are you willing to make a concession for infants and young children who don't possess this type of knowledge? I'm asking because it seems to me that it is those who haven't been willing to make such a concession are the originators of such unbiblical doctrines as infant baptism. In other words, if a newborn isn't baptized and then it dies, then it will go to hell or face the second death in the lake of fire.

Could you please elaborate on how you feel about this?

Thank you.

Again, although I'm asking this question of you, I'm also hoping to give several other posters here some pause before they go off the theological deep end themselves, if they haven't already.

Mercy. Sheer mercy and nothing else IMO.

1Ti 1:13
Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.
1Ti 1:16
Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
Rom 9:23
And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Rom 9:15
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Rom 9:16
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Rom 9:18
Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

 

[cv5]

Do you believe that newborn babies who die go to hell?

No.

https://christianchat.com/threads/once-saved-always-saved-osas-debunked.201128/post-5007373