Once saved always saved (OSAS) debunked

[ButterflyJones]

No one has made this assertion, another straw man fallacy on your part.

No strawman ever on my part. If you wish to alter your dogma do so. Don't blame others for seeing what you wrote for what it is actually intending to say.

If English is not your first language it is understandable you are confused. However, when someone says Jesus saved everyone, there is no exception because the word everyone is all inclusive.

 

[HeIsHere]

You argue it when you insist repeatedly that Jesus died to save all.

Jesus died for all that the Father gives him.

Here let me help you, it is not universalism to state that Jesus took on the sins, paid the debt for all humans past present and future.

It is only your Calvinist view that turns this into universalism.
Because you wrongly believe that Jesus only died for the elect which is heresy.

 

[Runningman]

I agree. Universalism is often disguised by its advocates so to avoid criticism. Or, bypass some forums rules that prohibit the false teaching itself.

It is 3asier to get around that by insisting everyone for all time is saved by Jesus death on the cross. The mere identity of everyone or all meaning believer or unbeliever.

It cannot be sustained by scripture. Revelation and the pit of fire's existence in itself proves this.

Obstinacy of false dogma purveyors necessarily requires ignoring those scriptures that decimate the false teaching of Universalism by any other name.
And of course there are those who feel compelled to make sarcastic remarks in their effort. Which is a blessing. Because they demonstrate there are other passages they choose to ignore as well.

Blessings.

It's because most people have totally misunderstood original sin it seems. It has basically given the Universalists a foothold upon which to stand. One false doctrine creating another and another.

 

[VARob]

However, when someone says Jesus saved everyone, there is no exception because the word everyone is all inclusive.

Jesus didn't save everyone, but he did make it available for everyone to be saved.

 

[cv5]

It's because most people have totally misunderstood original sin it seems. It has basically given the Universalists a foothold upon which to stand. One false doctrine creating another and another.

You sure are generous with your blanket condemnations. I for one find this prevailing pervasive attitude......disturbing.

 

[HeIsHere]

It's because most people have totally misunderstood original sin it seems. It has basically given the Universalists a foothold upon which to stand. One false doctrine creating another and another.

Universalist and universalism are two separate beliefs, btw.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

Who in here can show the scripture where it says Jesus death on the cross saved everyone on earth for all eternity? Whether they believe or not?

I have never heard anyone say this. Thats why I asked you who believes this

 

[HeIsHere]

No strawman ever on my part. If you wish to alter your dogma do so. Don't blame others for seeing what you wrote for what it is actually intending to say.

If English is not your first language it is understandable you are confused. However, when someone says Jesus saved everyone, there is no exception because the word everyone is all inclusive.

I know three languages and English is my first language.

I think you have twisted @ThereRoseaLamb 's words

Just come out and state what you believe, that Jesus only died for the elect and the rest have no Saviour

 

[VARob]

Jesus didn't save everyone, but he did make it available for everyone to be saved.

As anathema as the idea is to Calvinists, people have a role to play in their salvation. God requires about the least thing He could in order for someone to be saved: faith in Jesus Christ.

(yeah, I know I replied to myself..)

 

[Runningman]

You sure are generous with your blanket condemnations. I for one find this prevailing pervasive attitude......disturbing.

I know what most churches and their adherents teach and believe. Most of Protestant Christianity and the Catholics are in lockstep agreement about original sin. So my statement is valid. Be disturbed if you wish.

 

[Runningman]

Universalist and universalism are two separate beliefs, btw.

What's the difference?

Someone who adheres to universalism is a universalist. Someone who adheres to calvinism is a calvinist. This is just basic English grammar.

 

[HeIsHere]

That's what the Pharisees claimed.

Jesus claimed otherwise and contradicted them in his response, which you conveniently left out:

John 10
34Jesus replied, “Is it not written in your Law: ‘I have said you are gods’? 35If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?

Jesus reasserts His divinity. Why do you leave the rest out, Jesus did not contradict them.

38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

Tell me what does Son of God mean to you?

 

[cv5]

What's the difference?

Someone who adheres to universalism is a universalist. Someone who adheres to calvinism is a calvinist. This is just basic English grammar.

And your form of doctrine is the purest, most righteous and most pristine of all the eminent theologians that ever came before you?

Do you have all the right answers? I think not. Not even close. Despite your protestations to the contrary.

 

[HeIsHere]

What's the difference?

Someone who adheres to universalism is a universalist. Someone who adheres to calvinism is a calvinist. This is just basic English grammar.

A universalist church, whichever one that may be, would not hold the same teachings as universalism, generally speaking, they are not always synonymous.

 

[Snacks]

Who in here can show the scripture where it says Jesus death on the cross saved everyone on earth for all eternity? Whether they believe or not?

I can show the opposite. John 3:18 states quite clearly those who don’t believe aren’t saved.

 

[Runningman]

Jesus reasserts His divinity. Why do you leave the rest out, Jesus did not contradict them.

38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

Tell me what does Son of God mean to you?

Claiming to be a son of God isn’t the same thing as claiming to be God. The distance between these two claims is vast.

In John 9 the Pharisees claimed that God is their Father too. It isn’t a problem to say that and doesn’t imply claiming to be God. Keep in mind the Pharisees were just looking for a reason to stone Jesus so they leveled many false accusations, which he resisted

41You are doing the works of your father.”
“We are not illegitimate children,” they declared. “Our only Father is God Himself.”
42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on My own, but He sent Me.

As far as “The Father is in me and I in the Father” goes, it’s just a reference to being in unity with God. Jesus also said his disciples have what he has:

John 14
20On that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you.21Whoever has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me. The one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and reveal Myself to him.”

 

[Runningman]

And your form of doctrine is the purest, most righteous and most pristine of all the eminent theologians that ever came before you?

Do you have all the right answers? I think not. Not even close. Despite your protestations to the contrary.

People should believe what they say and be able to back it up. I can do that, you can’t.

 

[cv5]

People should believe what they say and be able to back it up. I can do that, you can’t.

Really? Well, IMO your batting average as regards rightly interpreting passages would have you kicked off a Tee-ball baseball league.
Just letting you know buddy.

 

[Runningman]

Really? Well, IMO your batting average as regards rightly interpreting passages would have you kicked off a Tee-ball baseball league.
Just letting you know buddy.

Same to you buddy.

 

[HeIsHere]

Claiming to be a son of God isn’t the same thing as claiming to be God. The distance between these two claims is vast.

In John 9 the Pharisees claimed that God is their Father too. It isn’t a problem to say that and doesn’t imply claiming to be God. Keep in mind the Pharisees were just looking for a reason to stone Jesus so they leveled many false accusations, which he resisted

41You are doing the works of your father.”
“We are not illegitimate children,” they declared. “Our only Father is God Himself.”
42Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on My own, but He sent Me.

As far as “The Father is in me and I in the Father” goes, it’s just a reference to being in unity with God. Jesus also said his disciples have what he has:

John 14
20On that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you are in Me, and I am in you.21Whoever has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me. The one who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and reveal Myself to him.”

So what is claiming to be a Son of God mean then, you did not explain what is?