OSAS is false based upon these scriptures.

[RJB]

enlighten me please.

what is OSAS?

 

[Terry1]

enlighten me please.

what is OSAS?

OSAS is the doctrine of Calvinism that teaches the perseverance of the saints. They believe that if a believer is drawn to Christ by confession and through baptism that they are forever eternally secure in this life as well as the next and nothing they say or do can separate them from the kingdom of heaven. This is not biblical and is false.

We can be separated from our salvation in this life after confession and baptism simply by not remaining within the will of God and returning back into sin without changing ones mind/repenting and returning to Christ and back within the will of God.

Then OSAS believers will assert that if they fall back into sin and never return to Christ, that they were never actually and truly saved, despite their confession, belief and baptism. This contradicts their statement that all one needs to be saved is belief, confession and baptism.

OSAS believers also make the claim that they believe in the "free will choice", but then assert that a "true believer" will never choose opposite Christ--which then annihilates the reason why God gave us a free will to choose at any point and time in our lives who we will serve after we've confessed belief and been baptized into Christ. This is also unbiblical because the word of God teaches us that we can and do fall back into sin by choice and that some never return to Christ as a result of this. They were once saved and then fell as a result of walking away from Christ.

We are taught that they can not be "renewed to repentance" when this happens. OSAS people will then twist and corrupt the word of God to support their belief again and again while cherry picking verses that seem to support their POV while ignoring the others that state the exact opposite.

Those of us who do understand that our election is conditional upon our choice to remain in Christ, also understand that the scripture they refer to are all talking about a future event regarding our eternal life and predestination in the next life based upon our choice to remain in Christ in this life.

They also have no clear understanding between the two separate laws and covenants that distinctly refer to two separate sets of "works". They continually confuse the *dead works of the old Mosaic Law* with the "good works and works of faith" under the NT law of faith. They do not understand the difference because their OSAS doctrine has blinded them to this truth.

 

[erowe1]

I notice that the OP is deceptive. It mixes together the words of the Bible with words added by someone else while making it look like it's all from the Bible.

If those passages so clearly teach that there exist people who have once been justified but who will not end up glorified, then why would that be necessary?

 

[Terry1]

I notice that the OP is deceptive. It mixes together the words of the Bible with words added by someone else while making it look like it's all from the Bible.

If those passages so clearly teach that there exist people who have once been justified but who will not end up glorified, then why would that be necessary?

Kevin's quotes have inserted words added by someone else as well--or didn't you think to read his assuming his were correct?

The quotes that you and Kevin believe are referring to eternal security in this life are all based upon those conditions in my OP and a future event that happens in the next life--not this one.

 

[erowe1]

Kevin's quotes have inserted words added by someone else as well--or didn't you think to read his assuming his were correct?

The quotes that you and Kevin believe are referring to eternal security in this life are all based upon those conditions in my OP and a future event that happens in the next life--not this one.

I didn't read Kevin's post until you just pointed me to it.

However, one important difference is that his post distinguishes the words of the Bible from the words of other people by putting the words from the Bible immediately after the reference and in quotation marks, while the words that aren't from the Bible are not given with Bible references and are not in quotation marks. Actually, now that I look at it, it's pretty careful and consistent in making it clear exactly which words are from the Bible and which aren't. Your post just mixes them together without distinction making it look like things that aren't in the Bible are.

 

[Terry1]

I didn't read Kevin's post until you just pointed me to it.

However, one important difference is that his post distinguishes the words of the Bible from the words of other people by putting the words from the Bible immediately after the reference and in quotation marks, while the words that aren't from the Bible are not given with Bible references and are not in quotation marks. Actually, now that I look at it, it's pretty careful and consistent in making it clear exactly which words are from the Bible and which aren't. Your post just mixes them together without distinction making it look like things that aren't in the Bible are.

That's what you choose to see and believe--I realize this, but it doesn't mean you or Kevin are correct.

The one thing Kevin can not do is ignore the conditions of our election that nullify OSAS all together. He can post his version of salvation that doesn't include those conditions--but he can not make them go away or mean something that they don't.

 

[erowe1]

That's what you choose to see and believe

But it's true right? Kevin's post does distinguish between what words actually come from the Bible and what words don't, while your post mixes them together without distinction.

 

[Terry1]

But it's true right? Kevin's post does distinguish between what words actually come from the Bible and what words don't, while your post mixes them together without distinction.

What does that have to do with what those scriptures are actually saying? Are you denying that any of the scriptures in the OP are conditions upon election? Of course you are because you don't believe our election is upon condition--you believe in "unconditional election"--which is Calvin's version of the "perseverance of the saint's"--which is false.

 

[jmdrake]

I didn't read Kevin's post until you just pointed me to it.

However, one important difference is that his post distinguishes the words of the Bible from the words of other people by putting the words from the Bible immediately after the reference and in quotation marks, while the words that aren't from the Bible are not given with Bible references and are not in quotation marks. Actually, now that I look at it, it's pretty careful and consistent in making it clear exactly which words are from the Bible and which aren't. Your post just mixes them together without distinction making it look like things that aren't in the Bible are.

Oh for crying out loud! It's obvious reading Terry's post which parts are Bible and which parts are commentary. It's dishonest of you to call her post dishonest.


MARK

Mark 4:16-18 – Parable of the sower – Parallel of Luke 8:13 shows here He is speaking of believers, who fall away.

16 And these in like manner are the ones sown upon rocky ground, who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy; 17 and they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away.


Only a complete idiot would be unable to tell that the words "Parable of the sower – Parallel of Luke 8:13 shows here He is speaking of believers, who fall away." were commentary and not part of the Bible itself. You honestly think the average reader is so stupid that he would think Mark put the words "Parallel of Luke 18:13" in there? Terry's pattern is obvious. Reference is given in a single line with short commentary. Verses follow that.

 

[lilymc]

Oh for crying out loud! It's obvious reading Terry's post which parts are Bible and which parts are commentary. It's dishonest of you to call her post dishonest.

I found both posts hard to read, due to the formatting. But that's probably just me. I'm a visual person and I just have this thing about things being formatted in a legible, "easy on the eyes" sort of way.

 

[RJB]

I pray for discernment for those who have difficulties deciding which is the Word of God and the word of Terry.

 

[Terry1]

I found both posts hard to read, due to the formatting. But that's probably just me. I'm a visual person and I just have this thing about things being formatted in a legible, "easy on the eyes" sort of way.

That's why I provided the link so that you could view it in it's original format. The copy and paste didn't retain the original format.

 

[jmdrake]

LOL

 

[jmdrake]

I found both posts hard to read, due to the formatting. But that's probably just me. I'm a visual person and I just have this thing about things being formatted in a legible, "easy on the eyes" sort of way.

LOL

That's why I provided the link so that you could view it in it's original format. The copy and paste didn't retain the original format.

Thanks for pointing that out. Future reference I put my links at the top of long posts so they don't get missed.

FWIW this is how the formatting is done on the page Terry linked to.

Matthew 5:20-22 – One who hates, speaks evil to fellow believers (brother), can get separated from God and sent to hell.

20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 21 "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' 22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.
Matthew 5:29-30 – Talking metaphorically Jesus says if a thing causes you to sin, it is better off to cut off body parts than suffer going to hell.
29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell . 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell .

 

[erowe1]

I pray for discernment for those who have difficulties deciding which is the Word of God and the word of Terry.

Did you go through the OP and try to tell? Because in many cases a person would have to check each and every verse to be able to tell which words aren't really from the Bible to be able to tell unless they already knew the verses pretty well by heart. The OP presents other people's words as though they are from the Bible itself.

If it really were so obvious that the verses taught the things Terry is trying to say they do, why would that be necessary?

 

[erowe1]

LOL



Thanks for pointing that out. Future reference I put my links at the top of long posts so they don't get missed.

FWIW this is how the formatting is done on the page Terry linked to.

Matthew 5:20-22 – One who hates, speaks evil to fellow believers (brother), can get separated from God and sent to hell.

20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 21 "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.' 22 But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.
Matthew 5:29-30 – Talking metaphorically Jesus says if a thing causes you to sin, it is better off to cut off body parts than suffer going to hell.
29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell . 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell .

Ah. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[RJB]

Did you go through the OP and try to tell? Because in many cases a person would have to check each and every verse to be able to tell which words aren't really from the Bible to be able to tell unless they already knew the verses pretty well by heart. The OP presents other people's words as though they are from the Bible itself.

If it really were so obvious that the verses taught the things Terry is trying to say they do, why would that be necessary?

You are grumpy today. Maybe I should have put a smiley up there, but sometimes grouches seem more angered by smiles. I dunno about you Erowe.

 

[Terry1]

Ah. Thanks for pointing that out.

That was a test just to make sure you read all the way to the end of the post.


j/k

 

[Deborah K]

You are grumpy today. Maybe I should have put a smiley up there, but sometimes grouches seem more angered by smiles. I dunno about you Erowe.

hahahhaha! God love ya.

 

[erowe1]

You are grumpy today. Maybe I should have put a smiley up there, but sometimes grouches seem more angered by smiles. I dunno about you Erowe.

I can't stand emoticons.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the real reason Judas killed himself was because of reading something with lots of emoticons, memes, and large fonts, bolds, colors, and underlines all used in combination.