Once saved always saved (OSAS) debunked
- Thread starter ResidentAlien
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I agree, both the pig and the dog returned to their former ways. This is not an assumption, it is clearly stated.
The assumption is in the assertion that those who returned to their former ways were never in a saved state. Agreed?
This phrase is synonymous with conjecture. There is nothing in your words that shows "evidence" of those who were "given the holy commandment" were never given salvation.
Does not OSAS believers accept that God will not take away what He has given, regardless of future actions?
Are you asserting that God would take back the given holy commandment?
The assumption is in the assertion that those who returned to their former ways were never in a saved state. Agreed?
This phrase is synonymous with conjecture. There is nothing in your words that shows "evidence" of those who were "given the holy commandment" were never given salvation.
Does not OSAS believers accept that God will not take away what He has given, regardless of future actions?
Are you asserting that God would take back the given holy commandment?
A couple of things. You are correct that I understand these verses given that I believe OSAS. I would never use these verses as proof texts. But there is ample other scripture to support OSAS. For example, Romans 8 goes so far as to say that there exists nothing that can separate us from the love of God. Given that reality, I understand our present verses in light of this truth.
As far as future actions, they are like all actions and reflect a person's reality. Everyone will continue to sin. Not everyone will repent. I'm inclined to believe those who don’t repent are probably unsaved. Those that do and ask forgiveness and help probably are.
The biggest misconception that people who don't believe OSAS have is that people who believe OSAS see it as a license to sin and a get out of jail free card. While I'm sure there are some who feel this way, a true believer will not. Those that truly are in Christ grieve over their sins and want more than anything to obey. Where you find individuals excusing their sins, you have either a believer who has fallen into sin and will eventually repent under God's chastening hand, or simply an unbeliever.
As far as future actions, they are like all actions and reflect a person's reality. Everyone will continue to sin. Not everyone will repent. I'm inclined to believe those who don’t repent are probably unsaved. Those that do and ask forgiveness and help probably are.
The biggest misconception that people who don't believe OSAS have is that people who believe OSAS see it as a license to sin and a get out of jail free card. While I'm sure there are some who feel this way, a true believer will not. Those that truly are in Christ grieve over their sins and want more than anything to obey. Where you find individuals excusing their sins, you have either a believer who has fallen into sin and will eventually repent under God's chastening hand, or simply an unbeliever.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
For whatever it's worth, Cameron143, and if you don't mind me commenting, the word "dog" in itself is representative/symbolic of the unsaved - it wasn't just arbitrarily chosen by God in Pet 2:22 to be standalone - it has biblical spiritual significance extending beyond that verse. By the verse stating they "turned" to their own vomit, even after having gained a knowledge of Christ, it means they then returned back from whence they had come - that they were dogs (unsaved) before gaining the knowledge, and they returned to it after gaining the knowledge - they were still dogs - they had never become changed by God from being dogs (unsaved) spiritually or they wouldn't have returned back to it- they remained unchanged and in that same spiritual state. They gained knowledge through natural man's earthly abilities but not though a spiritual mind; that is to say, that no spiritual conversion for them had occurred - they were never made saved/born again.
I think we can gain some insight from these verses in that the Bible generally uses the word "dog" spiritually as representative of the unsaved:
[Psa 22:20 KJV] 20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.
[Rev 22:14-15 KJV]
14 Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
This is already probably already obvious to you, but I thought that I'd mention it anyway.
I think we can gain some insight from these verses in that the Bible generally uses the word "dog" spiritually as representative of the unsaved:
[Psa 22:20 KJV] 20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.
[Rev 22:14-15 KJV]
14 Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
This is already probably already obvious to you, but I thought that I'd mention it anyway.
-
4
- Show all
We can not lose our salvation if we accept Jesus as our personal Savior. We do not earn our salvation. We are sealed until the day of redemption. These scriptures are for believers. I John 1:7-10 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ has cleanseth us from all sins. If we say that we have no sins, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
-
3
-
1
- Show all
To be able to lose salvation is equivalent to saying we lose Christ who is our Salvation ! The Old Saint said Lk 2:29-31
9 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:
30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
9 Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word:
30 For mine eyes have seen thy salvation,
31 Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people;
-
1
- Show all
Agreed but that is not the issue.
Brightframe52 is being coy, I suspect it is because he does not know the antecedent of "it".
Either way, you do not start an assertion about something such as a personal understanding with a pronoun.
Lazy grammar can cause much confusion, it would be simple to just explain what is the subject of "it". Agreed?
I would like to respond but I have no desire to cause more confusion by addressing a non-issue.
Brightframe52 is being coy, I suspect it is because he does not know the antecedent of "it".
Either way, you do not start an assertion about something such as a personal understanding with a pronoun.
Lazy grammar can cause much confusion, it would be simple to just explain what is the subject of "it". Agreed?
I would like to respond but I have no desire to cause more confusion by addressing a non-issue.
Of course you can begin a sentence with a pronoun but that is not the issue.
The issue is Brightframe52's unwillingness to simply label the antecedent of the "it" in his response. Can you not see this?
I cannot respond to his assertion about 2nd Peter 2:20-22 (post#6681) because I am unsure of what the "it" means in his comment.
Is this to hard to understand? If you cannot grasp this simple concept then I am at a loss of what to say.
The issue is Brightframe52's unwillingness to simply label the antecedent of the "it" in his response. Can you not see this?
I cannot respond to his assertion about 2nd Peter 2:20-22 (post#6681) because I am unsure of what the "it" means in his comment.
Is this to hard to understand? If you cannot grasp this simple concept then I am at a loss of what to say.