2 Peter 2:20

[August]

Hi Jac,

I'm just curious, how does your system account for babies and the mentally disabled?

[Jac3510]

It doesn't.

The answer is that I don't know what happens to them. I can speculate, but I certainly cannot say for sure. I can know the following things for sure:

1. Not all who die at or before childhood will be condemned to Hell (i.e., David and Bathsheba's child),
2. The sins of every child, both born and unborn, have been taken away. The question remains as to their separation from God.
3. Man can only be united with God by hearing and receing the Gospel of Christ.

From these, it seems to be a logical conclusion that some people--i.e., children--will be given a chance to receive the Gospel. How and when we aren't told. And even the assertion itself goes beyond the biblical text. It simply appears to be the logical conclusion.

I wish I could speak more dogmatically on the subject, but I can't.

[Kurieuo]

There are a few things I'd want to comment on, but I don't know whether I will get around to it. So right now I desire to clarify my beliefs, and also get to the root of why I reject OSAS doctrine. First you write:

You refuse to accept the notion that God would save someone simply because they trusted Christ, despite any lack of fruit, repentence of sin, or perseverence in faith. So it isn't easy to believe. This is exacty what makes it difficult to believe. However, it most certainly is simple believism.

I want to note I do infact accept someone can be saved without fruit. However, I do see that repentance of sin is required for those who hear the Gospel, for I see this is apart of the believing process (and rightly or wrongly, I'm certain other OSAS would hold to this also). Now where I believe one must not throw away Christ's gift, you see this as a work of perservering in faith. I don't see this as a work any more than accepting Christ's gift is a work. I certainly do not think it is a requirement to perservere in the faith by living righteously, which I'd then agree is adding works to obtain salvation.

Throwing away the gift on the other hand is something different. It is not simply a lack of perserverence, but a direct affront to God. It is a purposeful and intended insult revealing one doesn't want anything to do with God. And I see the passages in Hebrews and elsewhere I provided above support that such people will be given their desires of not wanting to be with God.

Now, as for the person who believes and later throws away their faith, I have no problem with that. They are still saved. Salvation comes by trusting Christ once to save you. The moment you do that, He does it. There's nothing you and I can do about it at that point. We are born again, never to hunger or thirst again for salvation. Salvation absolutely cannot be lost.

In getting to the root of why I reject OSAS, I think we have in some respect a different perception of salvation which needs highlighting. For I see it as absurd that God would force someone to be with Him who clearly doesn't want to just because they at one point truly accepted His gift. You appear to conceive of salvation as something everyone would desire, even if they were opposed to God. On the other hand I see salvation as representing one being saved from being outcast from God forever—everlasting condemnation from God. Yet, what if someone does not want this salvation for they want nothing to do with God? To give them salvation would be a hell to them. However, they have a problem. They accepted God's gift at one point in their life. So now despite their direct opposition to God, and the fact being in His very presence agitates the hell out of them, they are condemned forever to receive this salvation they can't stand. Salvation in such a sitation is not at all something to be desired. I find it hard to reconcile myself to this absurdity within OSAS doctrine. OSAS attempts to show God as more loving and gracious, but in the end I see it would be more loving and gracious for God to give a person what they desire even is that means no salvation.

Further, I just find so many strong passages in Scripture (such in Hebrews, 2 Peter, and James) which seem to go against OSAS doctrine, supporting God giving a person what they ultimately desire. If they want Him, no problem Christ can redeem them. If they don't, fine God isn't going to force them. Yet, I see only the latter group will burn with bitterness the rest of their lives for they could not be saved from their hatred and bitterness within their self. But what could be simpler, and more neutral in either direction? Ultimately I see I entertain a position which is nothing to do with works, and all to do with one's desire. Christ coming to die for our sins enabled this, that is, enabled it so if we desire God we can be with Him. Sadly, not many desire God, perhaps because of what He allows to happen and what He stands for repulses them. This can at least be seen in the arguments many non-Christians and Atheists make against Him...

I think I wrote more than I was going to, but to highlight the root cause which I see solidifies my rejection of OSAS—it is the absurdity I see in God making someone be with Him who doesn't want to be with Him on the basis that they accepted Him at one point early on in their lives. Thus, the Dan Barker's of the world are forced to live with God forever despite their seething hatred for Him. Good intentions may be at heart within OSAS doctrine, but I can't force myself to accept something which seems so absurd.

Kurieuo

[Jac3510]

Rather than line by line (or paragraph by paragraph ) you post, I just want to respond to a few ideas: repentence and the OSAS doctrine, perseverence as work, and the idea that God would force someone to be with Him for eternity.

1. There are people in the OSAS camp who believe that repentance of sin is necessary for salvation. I used to hold that view. This is why I distinguish between OSAS and objective assurance. The repentance view you advocate ties directly in the Lordship view of salvation, and many in that camp hold to OSAS. However, what they have to say is, "Once you are really saved, you can't be lost!" When they come to someone who has apparently "lost" their salvation, the response is that they never had it to begin with. Thus, it becomes obvious that we cannot know that we really have salvation until, at our death beds, we look back over our lives and see that we didn't reject the faith, live in sin, etc.

Against this, those of us who hold the OSAS/Full Assurance position (that is, the Free Grace position) all agree that repentance from sin is not necessary for salvation, and to insist that it is perverts the gospel message. I do not see repentance from sin as the "other side of faith." It is a work, plain and simple, and, in my understanding of things, it creates a works-based-salvation.

2. Your position is someone different than the standard Calvinists position, although it isn't exactly Arminian either (but closer to it, I would think). You would consider the preseveration of salvation to be default unless the person actively rejects their faith. Therefore, rather than having to work to keep your salvation, as in the Arminina and Calvinist camps (though the latter believes that God Himself does this in the elect, therefore, it is a necessary and assured result), you have to work to lose it.

There are two problems, though: First, Jesus said, "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day." (John 6:39, NIV) Your position flatly teaches that Jesus may, in fact, "lose" some.

Second, this means that salvation is not actual until you die in that state of belief. This goes back to my original argument. You are like the man on the train tracks with the train ten minutes away. You are temporarily safe, but the train can still get you. Thus, you are not indeed saved yet. However, if the actual gospel message is that salvation is a present, completed achievement, then your understanding of the gospel is simply wrong. Thus, I say again, if a person has never had 100%, objective assurance of their salvation, even if it was only assumed, then they are still dead in their sins.

3. I don't think the absurdity you point out exists. You have to remember that when a person is born again, they receive a new nature. The person then daily decides which nature to walk in . . . do I walk in the flesh or in the Spirit? Now, I believe it is possible for a person to totally reject their faith and refuse to ever walk in the Spirit again. This could well be, or at least lead to, the sin unto death. But, with that said, I don't believe they lose their salvation. I also don't believe that the person will not want to be with Christ for eternity. Why? Because even though in this life the person refused to walk in their new nature, that doesn't mean it stopped existing. When we are risen from the dead, we will be risen in glorified bodies, not in our present bodies. However, all sin is found in these bodies. The glorified will not possess such a nature. All then that will be left is the new nature with the new body, and thus, only the desire to please God. The part that rejected Christ will remain dead and not resurrected.

There are some eternal consequences for all of this, but that's deeper than we need to go. As for the Scriptures you mentioned that seem to argue against OSAS, they simply don't. I use all of those in my presentatio of OSAS, as a matter of fact, because they so strongly argue in favor. Hebrews, especially, contradicts the NOSAS position, although I cannot reconcile James or Peter with it, either.

Hope this helps,

God bless

[Byblos]

I think I wrote more than I was going to, but to highlight the root cause which I see solidifies my rejection of OSAS—it is the absurdity I see in God making someone be with Him who doesn't want to be with Him on the basis that they accepted Him at one point early on in their lives. Thus, the Dan Barker's of the world are forced to live with God forever despite their seething hatred for Him. Good intentions may be at heart within OSAS doctrine, but I can't force myself to accept something which seems so absurd.

I totally agree with this. It settles the issue for me from the free will perspective. But what is your take from the judgment perspective, Kurieuo? Do you agree with Jac as to the 3 types of judgments and the fact that Christians will not be judged from a salvation point of view but only from a rewards point of view? I guess my question is, who do you believe will be judged and on what basis?

[Kurieuo]

Hi Chris,

1. There are people in the OSAS camp who believe that repentance of sin is necessary for salvation. I used to hold that view. This is why I distinguish between OSAS and objective assurance. The repentance view you advocate ties directly in the Lordship view of salvation, and many in that camp hold to OSAS. However, what they have to say is, "Once you are really saved, you can't be lost!" When they come to someone who has apparently "lost" their salvation, the response is that they never had it to begin with. Thus, it becomes obvious that we cannot know that we really have salvation until, at our death beds, we look back over our lives and see that we didn't reject the faith, live in sin, etc.

Against this, those of us who hold the OSAS/Full Assurance position (that is, the Free Grace position) all agree that repentance from sin is not necessary for salvation, and to insist that it is perverts the gospel message. I do not see repentance from sin as the "other side of faith." It is a work, plain and simple, and, in my understanding of things, it creates a works-based-salvation.

I don't necessarily see how advocating "repentence" goes against full assurance, but this is perhaps because I don't see repentence (likely along with your OSAS brothers who accept this) as a work, but as apart of believing and accepting God's gift.

I also don't see how getting rid of repentance avoids the dilemma of "we cannot know that we really have salvation until our death bed." For if I followed you correctly, and given repentance is a work as you view it, you see "work" is added to belief and therefore conclude within a repentence-based position one must continue to work to sustain their salvation (ergo this can only be known at one's death bed). Yet, could not the same of "belief" be said? Not that it is a work, but rather one must continue to believe to sustain their salvation (and so again, this can only be known at one's death bed).

Now I would understand your response to this as a general agreement, but then you would add that is why you hold that belief in Christ is once off and entails God's gift of salvation being given and secured to us once and for all. Yet, it could equally be said that belief which includes repentance is also once off and entails God's gift of salvation being given and secured to us once and for all. Thus, I don't see that repentance necessarily causes an issue for those who hold to it within the OSAS camp (or even those outside it like me).

2. Your position is someone different than the standard Calvinists position, although it isn't exactly Arminian either (but closer to it, I would think). You would consider the preseveration of salvation to be default unless the person actively rejects their faith. Therefore, rather than having to work to keep your salvation, as in the Arminina and Calvinist camps (though the latter believes that God Himself does this in the elect, therefore, it is a necessary and assured result), you have to work to lose it.

There are two problems, though: First, Jesus said, "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day." (John 6:39, NIV) Your position flatly teaches that Jesus may, in fact, "lose" some.

I'm sure you can see how this passage is still compatible with my position of one being able to throw away God's gift. For it would simply mean that those who decided to insult God by throwing away Christ to oppose God were not one of the ones the Father gave to Christ. But what of the earlier verses which could be seen as supporting your idea of one coming to Christ as a once off thing to salvation? We have:

• 35Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

While all who come to Christ will never go hungry or thirst, this is only because they are with Christ. Those who are with Christ may never go hungry or thirsty, yet it still remains possible that they can leave the source of their food and drink. Further while those given to Christ will come to Him, it remains there may be some who come to Him who were not given to Him, and thus Christ still would not lose those who were given to Him.

An interesting implication can further be drawn from Christ's words in verse 37 ("... whoever comes to me I will never drive away"). While Christ seeks to hang onto all who are given to Him and won't drive them away (indeed the will of God is to hang onto them all for God is "not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance"—2 Peter 3:9), this suggests to me that it is still possible for someone to freely turn their back on Christ and leave Him. God just may not have given such people to Christ, and they certainly would not have been driven away.

As a side issue, it is also interesting here to note as a reflection upon your position of "belief only" without further action that 1) a person comes to Christ (repentance perhaps?); and 2) a person believes in Christ.

Second, this means that salvation is not actual until you die in that state of belief. This goes back to my original argument. You are like the man on the train tracks with the train ten minutes away. You are temporarily safe, but the train can still get you. Thus, you are not indeed saved yet. However, if the actual gospel message is that salvation is a present, completed achievement, then your understanding of the gospel is simply wrong. Thus, I say again, if a person has never had 100%, objective assurance of their salvation, even if it was only assumed, then they are still dead in their sins.

I see that assurance of salvation is actual, and I think one would not need to wait until the day they die in order to know they are saved. One is saved while they are with God, but because of the way our life here follows a process of time our decisions can freely change from one time to the next. Our decision for/against God is therefore a process, and so our free decision to come to Christ only becomes permanent at the end of that process.

I feel the need to reflect upon how we are here saved, for while salvation is causally based upon our decisions (which can change), salvation is also permanent and irremovable. Allow me to explain. When God chose to create, there were a range of other potentially possible worlds He could have created. In His omniscience He foresaw out of all those potential worlds that one in particular took His fancy—OURS. He saw that you, Chris, being planted in our world setup as it is, being born as you were at a specific time and place, within a community and family who also came about through a certain mix of people getting together, living at a certain time and place, and an almost infinite amount of other circumstances; given all these things He chose to enact this world where you would ultimately and freely choose Him and thereby be saved. By choosing to actualise our world, He predestined everything that was to follow, including your salvation. You weren't saved the moment you accepted God, you were saved the moment God chose you by setting this world in motion! At the same token, you were saved because you freely chose to take hold of God's open promise to be with Him through accepting Christ. This appears paradoxical, and it causes much disagreement amongst Christians on predestination and free will, but it can be seen here that salvation is in no way fickle. On the other hand our decisions we freely make do change. And as salvation is based upon our response, we may come to Christ thinking we have been chosen when infact God did not choose us and we actually do not have salvation but only a taste of it.

Now some people may find upon tasting salvation they find it sweet, but for some reason or another it later becomes bitter to them and so they spit it out. Did such people receive salvation? Yes. Did such people lose salvation? No. Because God never gave it to them, although He allowed them to taste it. Instead, they after tasting it freely throw it away for it is not salvation to them but a burden upon their desires. And God I believe obliges our free decisions which are for us a process. So getting to your points, I do not see "salvation" as a matter of safe or unsafe. I see it as what a person wants is what they get given. To heavily adapt your train analogy to reveal more fully what I mean:

• The person who turns their back on God is like a man chained to the train tracks. There is a train ten minutes away, so while the man is currently safe it will not be long before the train reaches him. The chained man sees a strong person running towards him with bolt cutters which makes him feel safe and relieved. The strong man cuts the chains off and lifts the once chained man to his feet. The rescuer invites the man to share a meal with Him, to discuss about everything which had happened and get to know each other better. The once chained man accepts and begins to follow, but as he is walking off the tracks he sees the train approaching and stops. He is still on the tracks, and while he has been saved he is not saved yet. Yet, as the train approaches it is traveling quite slowly, and lots of people seem to be running up and jumping aboard. They all seem like they are having fun. The man looks to his rescuer who is waving him to follow, but the man no longer seems interested in going with his rescuer. So instead of following his rescuer, the man waves goodbye, runs down the train track towards the train, and jumps aboard.

Now I know I love God and want Him and this is enough for me. It could be for some reason I may turn my back entirely on Him although He rescued me (however inconceivable it seems to me), but then it would be because I don't want this salvation He has to offer, not because it slipped out of my back pocket or because I was unable to hang onto it.

3. I don't think the absurdity you point out exists. You have to remember that when a person is born again, they receive a new nature. The person then daily decides which nature to walk in . . . do I walk in the flesh or in the Spirit? Now, I believe it is possible for a person to totally reject their faith and refuse to ever walk in the Spirit again. This could well be, or at least lead to, the sin unto death. But, with that said, I don't believe they lose their salvation. I also don't believe that the person will not want to be with Christ for eternity. Why? Because even though in this life the person refused to walk in their new nature, that doesn't mean it stopped existing. When we are risen from the dead, we will be risen in glorified bodies, not in our present bodies. However, all sin is found in these bodies. The glorified will not possess such a nature. All then that will be left is the new nature with the new body, and thus, only the desire to please God. The part that rejected Christ will remain dead and not resurrected.

I always end up writing much more than I intended, but I appreciate this discussion we have been having. I was infact most interested to respond to this point number 3, but I have to leave to focus on other things, although perhaps it would be enough for me to make a few comments.

I was thinking that if like you I thought "salvation" was something everyone wanted, even if they rejected it in this life and entirely turned their back on God, that I may be enticed to OSAS. Yet, then the thought still hits me of why would they desire something they turned their back on? It seems contradictory, and like I say absurd to me. Salvation as being with God is not something everyone desires as is evidenced by those who turn their backs on God. Perhaps God could take a person who doesn't want to be with Him, and burn away their contempt and hatred for Him so only good remains and they can benefit the richness of His love. Yet, what if nothing is left of that person in the end? And it seems to me if this were possible, what would be left would not be the same person. God would have kind of created a zombie person with a new body so they can be with Him. Yet, I think God desires persons with full freedom who can choose to love or reject Him.

Kurieuo

[Kurieuo]

I think I wrote more than I was going to, but to highlight the root cause which I see solidifies my rejection of OSAS—it is the absurdity I see in God making someone be with Him who doesn't want to be with Him on the basis that they accepted Him at one point early on in their lives. Thus, the Dan Barker's of the world are forced to live with God forever despite their seething hatred for Him. Good intentions may be at heart within OSAS doctrine, but I can't force myself to accept something which seems so absurd.

I totally agree with this. It settles the issue for me from the free will perspective. But what is your take from the judgment perspective, Kurieuo? Do you agree with Jac as to the 3 types of judgments and the fact that Christians will not be judged from a salvation point of view but only from a rewards point of view? I guess my question is, who do you believe will be judged and on what basis?

I am not familiar with Jac's perspective on judgement, but do know he accepts Christians being given various rewards at judgement. I do not agree with rewards as in often conceived, but at the same time I am not strongly opposed to it. I do believe that any kind of reward would more be one of status, rather than rewards as the receiving of objects or kingdoms.

Now the way I picture judgement is a universal scene which includes all beings before God's throne. All people will be judged before God's throne like a court. One by one everyone will be brought before God, and each person's actions will be laid bare. Those who knew the one being judged will be able to speak up either for or against them. For example, I'd imagine Mother Teresa would have hundreds of people coming to her defense describing how she loved them. In this way, I see judgement is as much about laying the true person bare before everyone, as it is about the verdict. In the end we will still all fail to add up to God's righteous standard. Yet, for those who came to Christ and who Christ vouches for, Christ will say "I paid the debt of this person." And that person will be justified by Christ in the sight of every living being. I am certain it will be as spectalur and as magnificant as this. I may be wrong that this will be how it plays out, and I am certainly in no way familiar with all the various theologies about the final judgement(s)... but this is how I envisage it.

Kurieuo

[Jac3510]

K, you and I have sort of the same problem in that we write more than we intend I'll try to be concise.

1. The idea that repentance is a one time act resulting in necessary assurance of salvation can go one of two ways. If by "repent" we mean "to change the mind," then I would argue that it is not a condition for salvation, but the condition for salvation. It is absolutely synonymous with belief/trust. If, though, by "repent" you mean "to turn from sin," I don't think we can make it work. repentance, in this second sense, is the same as "to commit to." If I am turning from sin, then I must be turning to something else. I am turning to, that is committing to, God. That is why the necessity of repentance is central to the Lordship view of salvation. It is the first and necessary step to the submission of the will to Christ.

Now, it is possible to say that once a person commits themselves to Christ then they are saved, even if they later reject the commitment they once made. I don't think, though, that is very coherent. It seems difficult to me to separate commitment from final perseverance. But, let's assume that you are right. I would make two brief points:

a) The issue, as it relates to assurance, is in final perseverance. If you can hold to repentance as necessary without the belief that all Christians will persevere (and still be saved), you can claim, at least in principle, to truly hold to OSAS.

b) However, in making repentance necessary to the Gospel message, you come face to face with a litany of Scriptural arguments. The "commitment of life gospel" is no gospel at all, for it, by definition, is an "exchange of life," gospel. That is, the person says, "Jesus, I'm giving you my life in exchange for Yours." Thus, salvation becomes a trade off, which is in direct violation of the true Gospel of Grace. I've said it a million times: God saves by grace or not at all. Or, put another way, God saves on His terms and only on His terms.

Anyway, while I think there is an underlying connection between repentance and perseverance, I'm willing to let it go in recognition of the argument that the call for perseverance robs the believer of assurance. This, in the end, is what I'm actually after. My problem with repentance is then on a different level entirely, subject to other discussion that we've had elsewhere on these boards.

2. The entire second section is most interesting to me. I was aware how you would respond, and in fairness I should have taken that into account with my response. It's dishonest to take the approach I did. So, my apologies there.

Anyway, I don't agree with your view of election and predestination. It's a very interesting position and it is self-consistent, I think. But the problem, as any good Calvinist will point out, is that it makes God's election more of a ratification type thing. God doesn't choose to save me. I choose to save myself. If I make that choice in the end, then God follows up with "His part of the deal." I've always agreed with Calvinists in the "God doesn't foresee faith" argument. Of course, I also believe that God is atemporal.

I won't re-explain my views of election here. I've done that extensively on about three other threads. In short, I take the particular election view in that God chooses who is saved. We do not choose it. We did not opt into salvation, and thus, we do not opt out of salvation. To use your picture, God created the world and then, looking at the world, saw two groups of people: those in Christ, and those not in Christ. He then chose all those in Christ for salvation. He does it. Period. I would reject the label here of corporate election, because I see the choice of individuals. I don't see how Scripture teaches anything other than this.

Now, obviously, that means I can't take John 6:39 as you do. For you, God gives to Jesus those whom He knows will persevere. I absolutely and utterly reject that claim. I know you don't see it this way, but I look at that as a works based salvation. If I have to persevere in the faith--even if that perseverance is passive, as you seem to advocate--my salvation is still dependant on me and my actions. However, that nullifies the Gospel of Grace, which is that nothing we do merits us of salvation, much less rewards! No, rather God chooses to give to Jesus those who have trusted Him at some point in their lives.

So, the basic argument comes down to this: does God give to Christ those who will continue in the faith, or those who believe at some point? You necessarily believe the former, which is why I say that you don't have assurance of your salvation in the same sense that I do. You can say "I am saved now," but what you actually are saying is "I am in a state of grace. If I die in this state of grace, and I'm pretty sure I will, then I will go to heaven." However, the "if" clause, by definition, means you are not assured of your final salvation. You flatly admit this when you say, "It could be for some reason I may turn my back entirely on Him although He rescued me." Since, for you, to turn your back entirely on Christ is to lose your salvation, then you do not know for 100% that you will spend eternity with Christ. All you can know is that you are in a "state of grace."

Now, if you want to define "assurance" as "the knowledge that one is in a state of grace," then yes, you have assurance. However, if you define assurance as I do ("the knowledge that one will spend eternity with Christ"), then you do not have it. Now, if I am correct and assurance, as I define it, is of the very essence of saving faith, then a person who has always held your position and has always rejected mine is unsaved. To use your imagery, they haven't had the chain cut. The man with the bolt cutters is still standing there offering.

3. This third point is really where the heart of our disagreement is, so we should be spending more time here . But, this will be, like your comments, very brief. You asked:

Perhaps God could take a person who doesn't want to be with Him, and burn away their contempt and hatred for Him so only good remains and they can benefit the richness of His love. Yet, what if nothing is left of that person in the end?

You are very close to what I am saying here. When I am saved, I receive a new nature. The moment I trusted Christ, I was regenerated. The dead spirit in me was given life. Now, one of the attributes of that life is that it has no sin nature. The sin nature, at its very core, is centered on the desire to please the self. The new nature, at its very core, is the desire to please God. Thus, the sin nature rules to flesh (even in the Christian) whereas the new nature rules the spirit. We decide daily in which nature we will walk. When I die, my flesh will stay dead. Only my new nature will be risen. Thus, even if in my flesh I choose to reject God totally and ignore the living spirt in me, that living spirit will be given a body that matches it in nature . . . one without a sin nature.

You accused this of being a zombie picture, but it isn't at all. In effect, you believe exactly the same thing. Or, do you believe that a person, once glorified, could fall from his glorified state and be cast into Hell? If so, then eternity is a long time, and we can logically guarantee that, eventually, the only person in heaven will be Christ Himself!

But how, then, does a person never once sin in eternity? The answer is that we do not have a sin nature in our glorified states. We want only to please God. And God can make us this way, because we chose Him. We chose to allow for this. It doesn't violate free will in any way. So, far from creating a zombie, at the moment of salvation, God fulfills our greatest wish, which is to have Him and know Him. The fact that we later change our minds about that doesn't mean anything, because there is still that part of us, no matter how neglected it is, that still desires only to please God.

I could say much more on all this . . . I feel like we are getting away from the very crux of my arguments and getting into periphial issues. But, we'll leave it here and see where this goes. All systematic theology aside, K, I cannot get past the repeated statements by Christ that the sole condition of salvation is faith alone. That faith is a one time faith, by nature, because the nature of the gift is everlasting life. You believe that a person can believe, look, eat, and drink, and still perish, die, be hungry, and be thirsty. What we are getting at here is a different gospel presentation. Like I said at the beginning: one of us is believing in Christ for something He doesn't offer!

I'm not saying you aren't saved, or that I'm not saved. I'm saying that this is the Gospel message and it is the only way to be saved. Where you are on that is between you and God, just where I am on this is between me and God. And speaking of God . . .

God bless

[Byblos]

I think I wrote more than I was going to, but to highlight the root cause which I see solidifies my rejection of OSAS—it is the absurdity I see in God making someone be with Him who doesn't want to be with Him on the basis that they accepted Him at one point early on in their lives. Thus, the Dan Barker's of the world are forced to live with God forever despite their seething hatred for Him. Good intentions may be at heart within OSAS doctrine, but I can't force myself to accept something which seems so absurd.

I totally agree with this. It settles the issue for me from the free will perspective. But what is your take from the judgment perspective, Kurieuo? Do you agree with Jac as to the 3 types of judgments and the fact that Christians will not be judged from a salvation point of view but only from a rewards point of view? I guess my question is, who do you believe will be judged and on what basis?

I am not familiar with Jac's perspective on judgement, but do know he accepts Christians being given various rewards at judgement. I do not agree with rewards as in often conceived, but at the same time I am not strongly opposed to it. I do believe that any kind of reward would more be one of status, rather than rewards as the receiving of objects or kingdoms.

Now the way I picture judgement is a universal scene which includes all beings before God's throne. All people will be judged before God's throne like a court. One by one everyone will be brought before God, and each person's actions will be laid bare. Those who knew the one being judged will be able to speak up either for or against them. For example, I'd imagine Mother Teresa would have hundreds of people coming to her defense describing how she loved them. In this way, I see judgement is as much about laying the true person bare before everyone, as it is about the verdict. In the end we will still all fail to add up to God's righteous standard. Yet, for those who came to Christ and who Christ vouches for, Christ will say "I paid the debt of this person." And that person will be justified by Christ in the sight of every living being. I am certain it will be as spectalur and as magnificant as this. I may be wrong that this will be how it plays out, and I am certainly in no way familiar with all the various theologies about the final judgement(s)... but this is how I envisage it.

Kurieuo

Thanks for the thoughts, Kurieuo. Would I then be wrong in concluding that you believe Christians will not be judged for their sins because Christ already paid the price for them (past, present and future ones)? If that is the case, does that mean Christ paid the price of sin for only Christians? If not, then is it possible for a Christian to be condemned to hell (such as when they reject their salvation)? Also, how do you see the role of repentance in all of this? Is it necessary? (this last one no need to repeat your answer if you already covered it in your response to Jac).

In Christ,

Byblos.

[FFC]

Oh my. I read all this stuff you guys write and it literally makes my head spin. I feel like the disciples who asked Jesus, "who then can be saved?"

God saves us by His grace and God keeps us by His grace.

I don't know what to say about the person who says they were once saved, born again, a cleansed in the blood christian, who then turns their back on God or joins a cult except to say they are stupid or never saved to begin with.

But what about the sincere christian who comes down with alzheimer's disease and gets to the dementia stage where they fly into fits of rage and profanity forgetting their own name let alone the name of Jesus? Damaged goods and fit for hell?

It's got to be all God or nothing because their is too much that could go wrong in our flesh and our sinful nature to let it determine anything.

Just some thoughts.

[led]

It's got to be all God or nothing because their is too much that could go wrong in our flesh and our sinful nature to let it determine anything.

Amen.
Perhaps that's what Paul meant when he said in Galatians 5:16,24,25
16 "I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh."
24 "And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires."
25 "If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit."

I haven't posted for awhile due to thinking and praying over this.
When I read 2 Peter 2:20
"And when people escape from the wicked ways of the world by learning about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and then get tangled up with sin and become its slave again, they are worse off than before."
and look at the context and try to understand the point that's being made, I see God saying that a Christian who becomes a slave again to sin is worse off than a non-Christian.
That tells me since a non-Christian will be judged to eternal death that this person is worse off.

I don't believe that God would punish His children worse than what hell would offer for any length of time.
I also can't see the point being temporal but rather an eternal one.
I've settled this within myself to be true and in line with many other scriptures. I'm content and will leave this for the rest of you to finish.

God bless you all!

[FFC]

When I read 2 Peter 2:20
"And when people escape from the wicked ways of the world by learning about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and then get tangled up with sin and become its slave again, they are worse off than before."
and look at the context and try to understand the point that's being made, I see God saying that a Christian who becomes a slave again to sin is worse off than a non-Christian.
That tells me since a non-Christian will be judged to eternal death that this person is worse off.

Good point, but I'm not convinced that these false prophets were ever christians. It seems to me that Learning about our about our Lord and savior and coming into a saving relationship with Him is different. Many cult members like the mormons know a lot about Jesus and His sacrificial death on the Cross, But they are believing a counterfeit Christ.

Many people, like the false prophets, also come to an intellectual knowledge of Christ but in their hearts don't really believe. There are countless seminary Professors who admit this.

And there are religious Shysters who know the truth but are only preaching to line their pockets and feed their egos.

[Byblos]

Oh my. I read all this stuff you guys write and it literally makes my head spin. I feel like the disciples who asked Jesus, "who then can be saved?"

God saves us by His grace and God keeps us by His grace.

That's the point we're debating FFC. Apparently we have a say in accepting Christ. The question is whether or not we have a say in rejecting him.

I don't know what to say about the person who says they were once saved, born again, a cleansed in the blood christian, who then turns their back on God or joins a cult except to say they are stupid or never saved to begin with.

And this goes to the heart of the matter of assurance. If a person believes he is saved then it turns out he wasn't saved after all, does that not negate absolute assurance?

If the answer is yes, then does it not follow and necessitate repentance? And finally, would that be considered a works-based salvation?

If the answer is no, i.e. once saved always saved, does that not negate our free will to reject God, (having been already saved)?

These are not simple dilemmas. Jac, for example, seems to think unless you have absolute assurance (once saved always saved, no matter what) then you aren't really saved. I'm not sure how 2,000 years of christendom will take that but that is basically what we are discussing.

But what about the sincere christian who comes down with alzheimer's disease and gets to the dementia stage where they fly into fits of rage and profanity forgetting their own name let alone the name of Jesus? Damaged goods and fit for hell?

That is a different matter entirely. The same question can be extended to people with birth defects or congenital mental retardation. God is all-just and all-merciful. I do not believe these people will be judged on the same footing as we will.

It's got to be all God or nothing because their is too much that could go wrong in our flesh and our sinful nature to let it determine anything.

Of course, no one is denying that. We are in disagreement as to the methods though. I believe God showed us the way and gave us the free gift of salvation. I also believe we have a part to play in keeping this gift. In my mind this allows us to express our free will to the fullest and God exercises his free will upon us on judgment day. To OSASers like Jac, they reject that on 2 levels: one because they say this would turn it into a works-based salvation (which I disagree with, as this is what Christ commanded us to do), and more importantly, two because it denies us absolute assurance of salvation (which I agree that it does but that's just the way it was intended).

In Christ,

Byblos.

[FFC]

FFC wrote:
It's got to be all God or nothing because their is too much that could go wrong in our flesh and our sinful nature to let it determine anything.


Of course, no one is denying that. We are in disagreement as to the methods though. I believe God showed us the way and gave us the free gift of salvation. I also believe we have a part to play in keeping this gift. In my mind this allows us to express our free will to the fullest and God exercises his free will upon us on judgment day. To OSASers like Jac, they reject that on 2 levels: one because they say this would turn it into a works-based salvation (which I disagree with, as this is what Christ commanded us to do), and more importantly, two because it denies us absolute assurance of salvation (which I agree that it does but that's just the way it was intended).

In Christ,

Byblos.

Thank you, Byblos. I appreciate your view. Although I lean towards the OSAS thing what you say about having the free will to extricate oneself from God's free gift of grace is something to ponder.

I just wonder how once God has drawn us to Himself through the very costly death of His son on the cross could so easily let us go simply because of an ignorant and ill informed decision that we make. In a sense it would be like letting a retarded child go back into a burning house not knowing that it would destroy him. I'm not sure anything can separate us from the love of God...even ourselves.

I'm not arguing just wondering.

[ruth]

Kurieuo
Posted: Sat Aper 22, 2006 4:20 pm --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are a few things I'd want to comment on, but I don't know whether I will get around to it. So right now I desire to clarify my beliefs, and also get to the root of why I reject OSAS doctrine. First you write:
Quote:
You refuse to accept the notion that God would save someone simply because they trusted Christ, despite any lack of fruit, repentance of sin, or perseverence in faith. So it isn't easy to believe. This is exacty what makes it difficult to believe. However, it most certainly is simple believism.

I want to note I do infect accept someone can be saved without fruit. However, I do see that repentance of sin is required for those who hear the Gospel, for I see this is apart of the believing process (and rightly or wrongly, I'm certain other OSAS would hold to this also). Now where I believe one must not throw away Christ's gift, you see this as a work of perservering in faith. I don't see this as a work any more than accepting Christ's gift is a work. I certainly do not think it is a requirement to perservere in the faith by living righteously, which I'd then agree is adding works to obtain salvation.
<Snipped>
Kurieuo

What is salvation?
It is not simply being forgiven. Yeshua forgave people when He was here on earth. On Yom Kippur, in Lev.23, it says that all their sins were forgiven if they repented and fasted on that day. These are not the way to be saved.
YHVH's plan as expressed in John 3:16 is the only Way. It says that "YHVH so loved the world that He ... ... " that all who believed would be saved.
Yes, Yeshua's atonement is the only way but the rest of that verse is also necessary.
For you must understand that your salvation is because of YHVH's love. The same One who threw mankind out of Paradise for just one act of disobedience and placed a flaming sword to guard him from returning, loved mankind so much that He would come and die to atone for their disobedience.
Yeshua said that God is Love. Would Love ever give those He loved a command that was not based on Love?
When we can believe in that Love, and all the implications of that belief, we can walk past that flaming sword in the knowledge of that Love.
When we believe in that Love, we cannot ever do anything He has said not to do, because that would be total stupidity.
To believe in Yeshua, Salvation, is to understand the Love of our Heavenly Father and to be totally sorry for all the times we have disobeyed and thrown away His gifts of wisdom. Repentance is not a work, it is a logical outcome of belief in the God of Love. Fruits are not works it's just part of walking in God's loving paths. Obedience is not works, it's acceptance of His Hand.
No one who is truly saved, intentionally can disobey. They can still mess-up. That is part of our human nature and living in a society that doesn't know their Creator, makes it hard for those who do.
But then, why did Yeshua need to die? His death in our place is an eye opener to the extent of YHVH's Love, of course and that may be all it takes to bring one to Him. But if you think on the animal sacrifices and God's promises of forgiveness that came through them, you might wonder if that wasn't enough. Or if just praying to God for forgiveness without any sacrifice, wouldn't be enough? If we can have everlasting life through repentance, why did He have to be an atonement?
YHVH is just. He said that those who sin, even once, may not populate His Paradise. By doing that one sin, they have shown their tendency to sin which is based on mistrust of the Love of the Father. In the Kingdom of God, Satan, the tempter, is destroyed. But any person with mistrust of the Love of God, is a potential Satan that could infect Paradise again.
Yeshua said to those He forgave while here on earth, your sin is forgiven so go and sin no more. His forgiveness that He gave them was not the same as the forgiveness necessary to return to Paradise. Neither was there any sacrifice in the Mosaic Covenant to take away the stain of sin.
That stain needed to be removed. Someone had to die to pay the price of our sin, or God would have been an unjust God, and universal salvation would need to result. With such as Hitler there, there would be no Paradise. So, He paid our price.
The way to Salvation/ Yeshua, is so simple and easy yet so many miss it.
Yeshua is YHVH. The Law of both is one Law. The judgement of both is one judgement. The Love of both is the same Love. To believe in Yeshua is to believe in YHVH. If you cannot believe that YHVH SO Loved the world..., then you have not believed in His Salvation.
Ruth