Once saved always saved (OSAS) debunked

[notonmywatch]

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." The natural man cannot accept the things of God. They are foolishness to him. 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. 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.

Seeing how we both agree that God is just, in your estimation, would it be just for God to condemn an infant or young child to the second death when they had no knowledge of good and evil prior to dying?

In my estimation, it wouldn't be just at all, and I believe that my estimation perfectly aligns itself with scripture; some of which I've previously quoted.

Anyway, like I said, I'm really not trying to single you out or anything. I chose to pose my question to you, but it was really a question for each and every one of us to hopefully consider in the light of the full counsel of God's word.

This specific aspect of this conversation reminds me of a scene from the "John Wyckliffe: The Morningstar" movie that I saw many years ago. You, or anybody else, can view that clip starting at the 13:40 mark if you'd like to.

 

[notonmywatch]

No.

I'm happy to hear that.

 

[Rosemaryx]

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

2 Samuel 12:22-23
…22David answered, “While the child was alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, ‘Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let him live.’ 23But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”

David believed he would see his son again , but not in his life time on earth...

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

...food for thought...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.

Precious friend, two Scriptures came to my mind, for 'food for thought':

1) Under the law, I don't believe David's child with Bathsheba was water
'baptized' (agree, Unbiblical), but these have comforted many a distraught
mother grieving for their children, who passed in miscarriages/youth:

2Sa 12:22-23 "And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and​

wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me,​

that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast?​

can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return​

to me." - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = -Where?​

+

Psa_23:6 "Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days​

of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever."​

​

2) Under Grace, today, Paul teaches this "food for thought":

Rom_7:9 "For I was alive (as an 'infant'?) without the law​

once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and ​

I (spiritually?) died."​

​

Is this the 'age of accountability' when the decision 'for Christ'​

could be made?​

---------------------------
Precious friend(s):

Grace, Peace, And JOY In Christ, And In His Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided (+ I and II)!

 

[notonmywatch]

2 Samuel 12:22-23
…22David answered, “While the child was alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, ‘Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let him live.’ 23But now that he is dead, why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”

David believed he would see his son again , but not in his life time on earth...

Precious friend, two Scriptures came to my mind, for 'food for thought':

1) Under the law, I don't believe David's child with Bathsheba was water
'baptized' (agree, Unbiblical), but these have comforted many a distraught
mother grieving for their children, who passed in miscarriages/youth:

2Sa 12:22-23 "And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and​

wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me,​

that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast?​

can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return​

to me." - = - = - = - = - = - = - = - = -Where?​

+

Psa_23:6 "Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days​

of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever."​

​

2) Under Grace, today, Paul teaches this "food for thought":

Rom_7:9 "For I was alive (as an 'infant'?) without the law​

once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and ​

I (spiritually?) died."​

​

Is this the 'age of accountability' when the decision 'for Christ'​

could be made?​

---------------------------
Precious friend(s):

Grace, Peace, And JOY In Christ, And In His Word Of Truth, Rightly
Divided (+ I and II)!

I was thinking about the situation with David's child all along, and that was mentioned in the clip from the Wycliffe movie that I linked to.

Personally, I do believe that there is some sort of age of accountability, but that could differ with different people based upon their levels of understanding.

 

[cv5]

Rom_7:9 "For I was alive (as an 'infant'?) without the law

once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and ​

I (spiritually?) died."​

​

​

It is my understanding that in this context, Paul, thought diligent (if not perfect) in keeping the ritualistic ordinances of the law, recognized that he failed miserably when it came to the inner man, the motivation and inclination of the heart. In this case, covetousness the 10th commandment.​

​

Rom 7:7
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Rom 7:8
But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

Rom 7:9
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

 

[Magenta]

Seeing how we both agree that God is just, in your estimation, would it be just for God to condemn an
infant or young child to the second death when they had no knowledge of good and evil prior to dying?

In my estimation, it wouldn't be just at all, and I believe that my estimation
perfectly aligns itself with scripture; some of which I've previously quoted.

Anyway, like I said, I'm really not trying to single you out or anything. I chose to pose my question to you, but it was
really a question for each and every one of us to hopefully consider in the light of the full counsel of God's word.

This specific aspect of this conversation reminds me of a scene from the "John Wyckliffe: The Morningstar" movie
that I saw many years ago. You, or anybody else, can view that clip starting at the 13:40 mark if you'd like to.

Thank you for the verses you have posted, and also for the video; I watched a few minutes of it I think the verses you supplied should suffice. It is true that no age of accountability is given in Scripture, but we do know that God is merciful and just, and that He knows best, and can be trusted, whatever He decides. Beyond that, perhaps you should know that I do not hold to the traditional view of hell, so when people bring up babies and try to invoke the image of such innocents burning eternally it strikes me as an emotionally manipulative ploy. Please know I am not meaning to indict you with this charge at all.

 

[Beckie]

Every time this subject is discussed the 'baby card' is played. IMO this shows a lack of grasping the Grace and Mercy of our Lord. Once again mankind is doing his best to out grace ,mercy or even save God . Salvation is not owned by man it belongs to God .

Psa 3:8 Salvation belongeth unto the LORD: thy blessing is upon thy people. Selah.

 

[notonmywatch]

Every time this subject is discussed the 'baby card' is played. IMO this shows a lack of grasping the Grace and Mercy of our Lord. Once again mankind is doing his best to out grace ,mercy or even save God . Salvation is not owned by man it belongs to God .

Psa 3:8 Salvation belongeth unto the LORD: thy blessing is upon thy people. Selah.

Well, your opinion seems to need some adjusting. The "baby card" that I allegedly "played" is in God-given scripture, and it needs to be considered alongside all other God-given scriptures.

 

[notonmywatch]

Thank you for the verses you have posted, and also for the video; I watched a few minutes of it I think the verses you supplied should suffice. It is true that no age of accountability is given in Scripture, but we do know that God is merciful and just, and that He knows best, and can be trusted, whatever He decides. Beyond that, perhaps you should know that I do not hold to the traditional view of hell, so when people bring up babies and try to invoke the image of such innocents burning eternally it strikes me as an emotionally manipulative ploy. Please know I am not meaning to indict you with this charge at all.

There's possibly another variable to all of this as well, and I somewhat hesitate to even suggest it. That variable might be God's foreknowledge. In other words, there are times in scripture where even infants or children were killed at God's command or doing, and that makes me wonder if God's foreknowledge didn't have a part to play in all of that.

 

[Magenta]

There's possibly another variable to all of this as well, and I somewhat hesitate to even suggest it. That variable might be God's foreknowledge. In other words, there are times in scripture where even infants or children were killed at God's command or doing, and that makes me wonder if God's foreknowledge didn't have a part to play in all of that.

That is true! It is a matter of the apple not falling far from the tree, as they say.
That is why Scripture instructs to raise up a child in the way it should go. Many
children are naturally inclined to rebel against authority. Do you have children?
Ha, look what happens when a toddler learns the word "no." My own daughter
as a very small child: daddy says no, she ignores him and continues what she
is doing. Mommy says no, and child knows mamma means business. Full stop
She had that man wrapped around her little finger his whole life. May he R.I.P.

 

[cv5]

Every time this subject is discussed the 'baby card' is played. IMO this shows a lack of grasping the Grace and Mercy of our Lord. Once again mankind is doing his best to out grace ,mercy or even save God . Salvation is not owned by man it belongs to God .

Psa 3:8 Salvation belongeth unto the LORD: thy blessing is upon thy people. Selah.

Exo 15:13
Thou in thy mercy hast led forth the people which thou hast redeemed: thou hast guided them in thy strength unto thy holy habitation.

 

[Magenta]

Proverbs 1:8-9; Proverbs 22:6

 

[cv5]

Take heed Runningman. That's all I have to say about it.....

Eph 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

Eph 1:4
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Eph 1:5
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Eph 1:6
To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

Eph 1:7
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Eph 1:8
Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;

Eph 1:9
Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

Eph 1:10
That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Eph 1:11
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

Eph 1:12
That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

 

[Beckie]

Seeing how we both agree that God is just, in your estimation, would it be just for God to condemn an infant or young child to the second death when they had no knowledge of good and evil prior to dying?

In my estimation, it wouldn't be just at all, and I believe that my estimation perfectly aligns itself with scripture; some of which I've previously quoted.

Anyway, like I said, I'm really not trying to single you out or anything. I chose to pose my question to you, but it was really a question for each and every one of us to hopefully consider in the light of the full counsel of God's word.

This specific aspect of this conversation reminds me of a scene from the "John Wyckliffe: The Morningstar" movie that I saw many years ago. You, or anybody else, can view that clip starting at the 13:40 mark if you'd like to.

Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

 

[cv5]

Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Do those who respond to and are thankful for God's mercy become "vessels of mercy"?

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,

 

[cv5]

You have no business speaking on this matter until you learn the foundations of the Bible regarding what sin is.

One mans sin ONCE was enough to curse the entire creation, universe, animal kingdom, and doom Adam's entire line to condemnation and death.

This answers what sin DOES. And infers what it is. And it is not trivial.

 

[Runningman]

One mans sin ONCE was enough to curse the entire creation, universe, animal kingdom, and doom Adam's entire line to condemnation and death.

I don't see it that way. I think we kinda agree a little bit because through one man's sin death reigned, but it's opposite of God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness through the one man Jesus Christ.

Think about it like this:

If you're saying all people are sinners because of Adam then it must be equally true that all people have grace and righteousness because of Jesus Christ. It's a simple question of who is greater: Adam or Jesus Christ?

This is how I know you're interpreting this wrong because Universalism, whether it be universal sin because of Adam or universal salvation because of Jesus, is false. There is a choice to make on account of each person as to whether they sin or not. Likewise, there's a choice on account of each person as to whether they place their faith in Christ or not.


Romans 5
17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

This answers what sin DOES. And infers what it is. And it is not trivial.

Yes, what it does or rather what it can do.

 

[Magenta]

If you're saying all people are sinners because of Adam then it must be equally
true that all people have grace and righteousness because of Jesus Christ.

That's a logical fallacy or two (at least): non sequitur and false dilemma.

 

[Runningman]

That's a logical fallacy or two (at least): non sequitur and false dilemma.

So Adam made everyone a sinner against their will but Jesus couldn’t make everyone righteous against their will?

Who is greater: Adam or Jesus? Evil or goodness? Dark or light? Wickedness or righteousness? That’s my point, a valid one at that.

I really hope you know the answers to these questions.