Evidence for God from Science

truthman wrote:B.W.

As I understand OSAS — it's based only on intellectual belief: no movement beyond just intellectual agreeing (believing) is needed to be saved always, so if a person falls away they remain saved no matter what. That is a simplified version of OSAS as I understand it to mean.

I might as well say that I am a Baptist. Baptists believe as a rule have always believed in eternal security (except for break away General Baptists and Free Will Baptists.) We do not generally use the term "once saved always saved" for eternal security, but we do recognize it is generally the same thing. Then, within the Baptists there is a significant percentage that are 5 point Calvinists with a somewhat different definition of eternal security also called perseverance of the saints in the 5 points. I believe the majority of Baptists are not Calvinists: I am not.

Of the many hundreds of preachers and Christians I have known in the US and Canada I have never encountered anyone who would admit to believing what you say about OSAS. On the other hand, I have encountered far too many Evangelicals and Fundamentalists who espouse a position we call "easy believism" which may link up to your definition. Far too many in their zeal to get as many converts as possible have resorted to a brief presentation of the gospel followed by asking people to pray a prayer asking God to save them followed by telling the person they are saved because they asked God to save them. They may then tell the supposed convert that they are saved no matter what. Many of these supposed converts never truly understand the gospel, much less believe on the Lord with all their heart.

If you are interested in an in depth study on the doctrine of election, I wrote a thesis on the subject I would gladly share.

I totally agree with you about love being the heart of Christianity. Love is superior to law. What many are espousing today in rejecting legalism is licence. The motto of the last church I pastored was "Real Christianity is spelled LOVE".

That is also why I chose this signature...

I used a simplistic definition of OSAS but from what I have encountered across the USA wherever I go speak is in many cases the OSAS simplistic definition I gave because that is the bottom line of reasoning. Not so much with the Baptist. My parents are Southern Baptist-I grew up in that but turned away into atheism before returning to the Lord in late 1980. From there, after years of study and contemplation on the matter, reading both sides, I came to my own personal conclusion in eternal security is true: and at the same time came to the conclusion that 'OSAS' is not in the same temperament, or the same, as the 'Eternal Security' of the believer.

Again, as I travel, I run into churches that adhere to doctrines that state that a real honest to goodness Christian is able to lose their salvation as well. As an Evangelist, I have to be sensitive in this area. Therefore, those that hold such view, I respect and personally come to the conclusion that those real honest to goodness Christians they claim lost salvation, never understood or heard, or know really knew Christ, thus were never really saved. I don't say anything about this, but view things differently to myself, applying what I know to what they claim and say.

So if a person wants to class such as Christians, I let them, knowing within myself you can't judge a book by its cover. In my opinion, it's a matter of terminology, so I do not hold anything against anyone espousing the 'losing salvation doctrine.' I just listen and understand what they are conveying without strife toward them. A matter of perspective that helps keeps a bond of peace. Again, truthman, you most likely have noticed how few Christian leave the faith. Some may leave the Churchanity, but not Christ, later they return to the fold. This is more common than one losing salvation.

I have seen and read people claiming to be Christians, forsaking Christ, write books about it, some join the Blaspheme the Holy Spirit club (on the web), but a closer look at such testimonies is striking — most leave angry because of the people in the church, or mad at God over a physical lose of something or loved one, or because of bad hyper or hypo doctrines about faith, prayer, election, etc. Then again, how many of these may be likened as to Jonah, running away from God but later will return? We do not know.

Let me use my best Billy Sunday-ism mini sermon to make a point:

“I know many sour lemon sucking pickle persimmon enjoying prim and proper stodgy types, who go to Church every Sunday, wearing their sanctimonious starched collars who don't know Christ anymore than a lost hell bound drunk knows sobriety…

“Then again, I meet many a sour mean ol' drunk headed for hell who met Christ and became a saint wearing holes in their overalls, dirt in their shoes, into Church who become the best loving Christians anyone ever wanted to meet being rejected by those sour lemon sucking starch collars in Church!

“What do they do, leave Christ because of the holier than thou legalist become stodgy like us inhabitants of tombs disguised as building with a steeple on their roof? NO — They become the best Preachers! Reaching people lost, hell bound, pull them up from life's gutter into the loving arms of Christ!

“Grant me an army of such not afraid to love as Christ, the lost, and each other — and the world will know what Christ came to do so either they can accept it (freedom Christ brings of him knowing you, personally) or reject it (remain enslaved to thinking slavery is freedom and doom is bliss)!”

“Christ brings forth a choice and backs up that by his own blood. He came not to make you into a sour lemon sucking pickle persimmon enjoying prim and proper stodgy type who goes to Church every Sunday, wearing a more concentrated starched collar than their neighbor for all to see how good they are for nothing.

“Jesus came to turn the sinner into a living extension of his own body, living the love of God shed abroad in our hearts, not on our sleeves but in our hearts... those, He knows. The others, well, He doesn't no matter what they claim to do in His name…

To the reader who stumbles upon this thread: “Are you known by Christ by your sleeve size or by a circumcised heart healed by the love of God within?”

-
-
-
And I agree with August's statement as well

The inherent danger with framing questions in this manner is that some assumptions often end up being made about the nature of God in the process. When you become focused upon process then you reduce or limit God in some manner to only acting in the prescribed manner and sequence. That's appropriate, IF God has Himself either voluntarily placed that limit upon Himself or is constrained otherwise for some reason related to His character and attributes.

When you begin to place a high premium upon the quality of one's belief to the degree that you elevate that above God's sovereign will, then you're flirting with a form of gnosticism.

That why too, so much of this is seen in the light of what we really believe about the Character and Nature of God. There's an inherent assumption made when you believe that God is willing to send a person to hell on the basis of the matter of their belief based upon minute nuances in a Biblical passage. It begs the question too as most of these questions didn't arise until later in Church History (the NT wasn't formally cannonized until the 4th century although the books were circulated and generally accepted in most cases much earlier) as to whether the faith of early believers in the early church is then somehow suspect because their belief and approach to things was somehow less rigorous or intellectually examined than ours today.

Frankly, I think some of this falls into what Jesus was speaking of with the Pharisees when he said, "you strain at gnats and swallow camels."

At some point, at least as I see it, while we certainly want to seek to understand and be as sure as we can be that we've approached God on the path of Jesus Christ's finished work, my faith is in Christ, and in my belief that God has prepared a path to Him because He loves me! He's not waiting in a reserved manner to see if I'll trip along the way. Like the Loving Father of Jesus Prodigal Son parable, God sees us a long way off and rushes to us to embrace us and welcome us home.

Far too much of systematic theology, in my opinion, reduces God to a judge and Jesus to a lawyer in the form of Roman Law, and Greek Philosophy. Those are apt analogies and there are some influences from those sources in some limited portions of the scripture, but they are not the whole of the context of the person of God and how He relates to us.

The greatest freedom in my Christian walk has come in the years since I left formal ministry and have begun to renew my mind to this truth and to ask myself before I descend down the path of systematic theological examination, what perspective I've starting with as to the nature of God. I'm convinced that God really is Love. That doesn't preclude His holiness, His Justice etc., but all of that falls into the context of His Love, and His plan to bring us back into the fold of relationship with Him. If I were, as I have in the past, to see Him primarily as distant, aloof and Holy, my walk with Him would look like it did in the past.

I've walked both paths. I still have a lot of growing to do. But I have no desire to return to the old manner of that walk, even though I believe I was truly saved then. There's so much more to experience in that walk you accept that God really does love you, accept you based on Christ and you no longer have to walk in fear, in performance and somehow waiting for God to suddenly turn on you and start punishing and shaming you for all your flaws which remain until Christ's final work is accomplished in you.

truthman wrote:

August wrote:I have been following this discussion for years (even met with Jac in person to discuss it), and I think what shapes my thinking around the topic is this:

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."

1Pe 1:23 since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;

Can someone be born again without any change to who or what they are? Once one is born again, one is in the process of sanctification, and that is irrevocable. To say that one can apostate from sanctification may be a contradiction in terms, because that would indicate one was not truly born again...how can one become born again through the Spirit, and be in the process of being "made holy", and then not believe any more? God promises that while we will not be made perfect in this life, we will persevere in our faith:

Php 1:6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

There is no way that you can fall into unbelief and still be saved:

Rev 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

But even more than that, I believe that once one is saved, you stay saved. But I do not agree that it is down to some intellectual assent or some weak-kneed prayer at an altar call (even though that is how my road to salvation started ). My assurance is not built on anything I can say or do, it is built on the assurance of Christ:

Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
Joh 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
Joh 10:29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
Joh 10:30 I and the Father are one."

Well said. I totally agree. That is the same thing I have been saying. Where have you been hiding? I had concluded almost everyone on here was an Arminian.

Nope. I am a 5 pointer.

But having said that, every person who trusts in Christ alone for his salvation is a brother or sister in Christ, regardless of doctrinal standing.

It appears that some of the confusion is in definitions. When I define "saved" as being saved from the penalty of sin and eternal death in hell through being born again as a child of God with eternal life, then it follows that from that point on the person must remain saved from eternal death in hell so the person is always saved.
I do see an erroneous definition of saved in Calvinism where a person is said to be born as one of God's elect chosen before the foundation of the world and therefore saved from birth leading to belief at some point in his life.

From here, I would say we need to emphasize grace. True faith accesses grace: Romans 5:2. It is the grace of God that takes a corrupt sinner and transforms him into a righteous child of God. The works mentioned by James are a necessary product of the grace of God. It is not up to the child of God to produce good works by his own fleshly effort or by living under law. That is where legalism fails. Sanctification (salvation from the power of sin in our lives) is solely by the grace of God, and because it is by the grace of God works must follow since the grace of God is rooted in His omnipotence and is greater than the old nature and sin. If no works follow, then there was no grace. The two are inseparable.

A new child of God may or may not continue to walk by faith. Since grace is accessed by faith, those who walk by faith will experience more grace and therefore more good works than those who do not.

As far as love, the true work of grace is to make us love God and love our neighbour. Love is the fulfilling of the law. Love will make a person far more holy than will law. This is the commandment that Jesus gave us: that we love one another.

Byblos wrote:

truthman wrote:Well said. I totally agree. That is the same thing I have been saying. Where have you been hiding? I had concluded almost everyone on here was an Arminian.

Lol, now that is funny. August, do you want to take this one or should I?

Lol. But I have been kind of quiet and letting all you heretics fight it out.

August wrote: Lol. But I have been kind of quiet and letting all you heretics fight it out.

Gee, thanks!

I am reformed as well, but also tend to sit back...

truthman wrote:

August wrote: Lol. But I have been kind of quiet and letting all you heretics fight it out.

Gee, thanks!

Old joke between me and Byblos....

truthman wrote:I do see an erroneous definition of saved in Calvinism where a person is said to be born as one of God's elect chosen before the foundation of the world and therefore saved from birth leading to belief at some point in his life.

For me, Ephesians 1 & 2 pretty much takes care of that. There can be no doubt that there is some kind of election.

From here, I would say we need to emphasize grace. True faith accesses grace: Romans 5:2. It is the grace of God that takes a corrupt sinner and transforms him into a righteous child of God. The works mentioned by James are a necessary product of the grace of God. It is not up to the child of God to produce good works by his own fleshly effort or by living under law. That is where legalism fails. Sanctification (salvation from the power of sin in our lives) is solely by the grace of God, and because it is by the grace of God works must follow since the grace of God is rooted in His omnipotence and is greater than the old nature and sin. If no works follow, then there was no grace. The two are inseparable.

I don't disagree with any of that.

I would encourage you, and everyone else here, to investigate the "Ordo Salutis" (order of salvation) for their respective views. Salvation is not a singular term.

I have said before, salvation is a process
1. Saved from the penalty of sin when a person is born of God.
2. Saved from the power of sin in our life which is a life long process.
3. Saved from the power and presence of sin at resurrection.

As far as election: it is most certainly a biblical doctrine.
I have written an in depth thesis on the subject if you are interested.

truthman wrote:As far as election: it is most certainly a biblical doctrine.
I have written an in depth thesis on the subject if you are interested.

I'd be interested to read it. Was it in pursuit of some academic qualification?

Byblos wrote:

jlay wrote:Byblos, I agree, but again would emphasize the importance of RIGHT BELIEF. We know that Christ's work is complete and sufficient. There is nothing lacking in this regard. What has God called us to do? Beleive. So this believe must be genuine.

And that's the crux of the whole discussion. How does one know it is genuine belief, based on saving faith? The answer is no one can because there is always the possibility it may turn out to be a false belief based on no faith. At the heart of the discussion is NOT whether or not one can lose their salvation, it is the assurance they had it to begin with. Bottom line is assurance takes on one of 2 forms: 1) either an absolute assurance, without any conditions of any kind, or 2) a moral assurance with conditions (conditioned on right belief).

jlay wrote:Even this aspect is from God, as only he can beckon to the heart of man, and bring him to a place where he will trust in the work of Christ. We must be born from above. If a person's belief is born of man, then it will not save.

I certainly agree (and not just for the sake of this discussion). It is ALL God's work, even the faith I have to believe in him.

That brings up a whole other matter of 'assurance.' I had this great post all finished and then lost it somehow. Do a word search on 'assurance' and you will see it is the exact same Greek work for faithfulness. (Pistis) I think there are some folks who are very misguided in how they present assurance. "you need to know, that you know, that you know." Always sounded very self focused too me.

As this discussion progresses it is encouraging to see that everyone is moving to this place of giving God all the glory for our salvation. Appropriate!

If no works follow, then there was no grace. The two are inseparable.

And how do we define these works. Does it just have to happen once?

jlay wrote:And how do we define these works. Does it just have to happen once?

I guess that is the million dollar question, and the one that anyone who brings up "works" always seem to have to answer. My honest opinion is that there is no straight answer. But I do think that a trend of turning towards God in a life that is being sanctified is evident, just from personal observation. Like any journey there are sometimes one step back and two steps forward. We will always still sin as long as we retain some human nature, we will sometimes neglect to do the right thing, but those episodes, over time, do get less and less.

The Bible does not say for nothing that the narrow road is a hard one. We should also not forget what we read in Psalm 42, and that is why I am always left somewhat bewildered by these discussions. Once our soul has experienced the rebirth and co-inhabits with the Holy Spirit, we thirst for God, for His Wisdom, His love and His knowledge...it is a desire even in times where we feel let down or abandoned by God. Similar to that thirst is an underlying acute awareness of our sins when we do it, and the painful regret afterward, even if we cannot stop ourselves from sinning. That is not what saves us, but just shows that something, not from ourselves, has changed.

Here is a link where you can download the paper on election as well as an outline.
I also have a few audio recordings on there.
http://cid-9b10768001eecc0e.office.live ... spx/Public