Sick OSAS doctrine strikes again!

[scooter]

"Maybe soon, I will see God and Jesus. At least that is what I was told. Eternal life does NOT depend on works. If it did, we will all be in hell," Sodini apparently wrote, before adding later, "I was reading the Bible and The Integrity of God beginning yesterday, because soon I will see them."

This is the Gym shooter's online blog.

No they don't teach that, do they...

[Full Quiver]

Eternal life does NOT depend on works

It doesn't unless you count faith in Christ's work as a work. In fact eternal life depends on a work that was already accomplished by Christ, it is finished.

Now whether this guy was a Christian or not is an entirely different story.

Let's just pretend that the gun was a phone and all those that dies were having trouble breathing or were suffering from severe diabetes. Does that change the way some folks look at some things?

[dolfan]

Scooter, that's not "OSAS"/"eternal security". I personally do not know of one person who is a Christian, who believes in the eternal security of the believer, and who would believe anything close to this guy's whacked out statement.

Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments." You can't keep the commandments without obeying them. That means DOING them. The guy was not leaning on any notion of once saved, always saved. He was leaning on something totally and completely different than the gospel of Jesus Christ. There's not one single Christian, who is truly Christian in any sense of the word, who would teach that God's saving grace allows you to murder people.

Aside from that, John wrote Jesus' words, "By this will all men know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." Plotting a mass murder is not love. "If someone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also" (John 4:20, 21).

This man was NEVER a believer. Never. I don't care if you or anyone else believes that the Christian is always saved. But, don't lump what this guy was and what he did and said in any way to anything amounting to faith in God. This guy was evil, mad, sad, lost, confused, nuts, etc. But one thing he was not: saved.

I'm going to take a second to sort of "go off", but in a friendly way. You folks who keep hammering this issue act as if those of us who DO believe in OSAS/eternal security give sin a pass. It is the exact opposite. You folks who are adamantly of an opposite understanding could be labeled like this: you allow people to just drift in and out of faith like a favorite suit of clothes. "Yeah, I got saved in 1985, but I backslid in 1989, and then I got saved again in 1991, but by 1993 I was doing some hard drugs and not living right, but praise God in 2001 I was saved and even baptized, and had that not happened, then when I fell off the wagon in 2003 I never would've gone back to rehab in 2006 and right now I'm a Christian....". And, evidently, whatever the current profession of someone is, that's it.

That's not my opinion of any of you, by the way. But, I've heard it and seen very similar accounts more than once. And, if that person is currently "in", then we're all sweetness and light about them. That's just baloney. But, since we're all eager to hatch unusual examples to try and typify the whole of something, let's do that in both directions to be fair.

Well, what does the Bible say? A double-minded man is unstable in all of his ways. You cannot serve two masters. Let's hear the end of the matter: fear God and keep his commandments. Well, folks, that's works.

Jesus said:

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day." John 6:37-39.

And,

"He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him." John 14:15.

John also wrote, "And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments." 2 John 1:6.

Salvation is about works. How can we demonstrate that we have faith but for our works? James said, "Faith without works is dead." What we DO matters. It is the evidence of the faith that is within us --- or, in the case of the Pa. shooter, the faith that is not.

So, if not one person who lurks or posts here believes in OSAS, great! There's not one place in the Bible that says you must ascribe to that view as opposed to yours, nor one that says it vice versa. There's not even a good, systematic way to conclusively, absolutely garner together all the bible has to say on that topic and finally and authoritatively once and for all say in either direction. We do the best we can in understanding these things.

[scooter]

Scooter, that's not "OSAS"/"eternal security". I personally do not know of one person who is a Christian, who believes in the eternal security of the believer, and who would believe anything close to this guy's whacked out statement.

Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments." You can't keep the commandments without obeying them. That means DOING them. The guy was not leaning on any notion of once saved, always saved. He was leaning on something totally and completely different than the gospel of Jesus Christ. There's not one single Christian, who is truly Christian in any sense of the word, who would teach that God's saving grace allows you to murder people.

Aside from that, John wrote Jesus' words, "By this will all men know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." Plotting a mass murder is not love. "If someone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also" (John 4:20, 21).

This man was NEVER a believer. Never. I don't care if you or anyone else believes that the Christian is always saved. But, don't lump what this guy was and what he did and said in any way to anything amounting to faith in God. This guy was evil, mad, sad, lost, confused, nuts, etc. But one thing he was not: saved.

Response: I'll tell you someone told him something.

Basic facts, someone told him that salvation was not based on "works" and you see the results.

It is a thought process that the doctrine creates within MANY.

[dolfan]

I edited by adding some thoughts, verses, and didn't see your post responding to mine. Let me say this, though. OSAS didn't do that to this guy. Something else did. A lie, one that you and I would both rush to correct if we heard it being told. "Salvation doesn't depend on works." Well, yeah, it does. It depends on the work of Jesus on the cross, the work of resurrection, the work of actually turning away from YOU and following the way of Jesus, which means doing and being a different kind of person than a guy who walks into a gym full of unarmed, unsuspecting women and opening fire on them. But, this had nothing to do with OSAS.

You noted, correctly, that there is a doctrine that creates the same kind of sick thought about salvation that this guy had. While it isn't OSAS, it is an "easy believism", as I've heard it called. "Cheap grace" is another phrase that gets used. You don't press into the kingdom with ease. It may be a simple thing, and I believe it is, to decide to follow Jesus. But, simple and easy are not related. You don't have to have a vast understanding about God to meet and follow Jesus. You do have to die to yourself and live unto Him --- and that ain't "easy". Jesus died on a cross --- simple, but not easy.

The thought that this guy had was a lie from hell. It is a lie to tell someone that if you just say a prayer, you're saved; if you just "believe" (i.e., gin up within you a willingness to say to yourself 'I believe'), then you're saved. And, I think you're right that THAT belief/doctrine destroys people. Those who teach it have a lot to be accountable for, including about 5 freshly lost lives from that shooting.

[scooter]

Scooter, that's not "OSAS"/"eternal security". I personally do not know of one person who is a Christian, who believes in the eternal security of the believer, and who would believe anything close to this guy's whacked out statement.

Response: Tell that to the Baptist church I visited last week.

Here's the real deal regardless of who you know.

I visited a baptist church last week for the funeral of a person who overdosed on drugs after living a hellish life but praise God she believed, and "No man can pluck you out of His hand."

Reality is that is what the doctrine does. Regardless of how you wash it up and paint it pretty. That is fact.

It's a sick doctrine and be careful not to unknowingly promote it.

[dolfan]

Easy in, no way out? That's what they were preaching? That's a lie. I agree, that's a lie. But, that's not OSAS.

Look, what we all have to be careful about, I think (and this is not prettying it up), is counting the cost of "going in". If I cannot lose my salvation, let it be certain that I cannot easily get it, either. If God has designed the relationship between Himself and us so that, once we really are His, we cannot become something that is not His (and that is something that I reasonable minds can disagree on), there's no way in the history of our faith, Scooter, that anyone called "faithful" has ever taught that a person may become Christ's in anything approaching "easy".

That is why you will hear myself and other believers who DO believe that the Bible teaches the eternal security of the believer say it just that way: "eternal security of the believer". It is the believer, the doer, who is secure. The casual, elbow-brushing, thorny grounded person is not a believer. Oh, you may see some temporary, short-term changes, but not transformation. Not lasting, enduring, persevering, fruitful change. I think it is an uncomplicated and (to me, at least) indisputable thing to say of someone who was "saved and baptized" long ago but who has lived like hell for 10, 20 years or whatever, that they were not "once saved", but that they were never saved. They didn't count the cost, and when they got on the threshhold of faith, the difficulties of actually doing it were too expensive for them. They were not willing to give up themselves for the prize. Preaching over their corpse some other falsely encouraging "no pluck" passage is, indeed, misleading. It isn't OSAS. The truth, though, as I understand it is IF saved, always saved. If you are saved, you'll only be "saved" once. You may have some struggles, you may slide backwards, but the general tendency in your life will be onward and upward and should be one where the momentum of transformation is eventually (and, maybe quicker for some, a bit slower for some others) and decidedly toward God. For those who die soon after that real conversion or who die some time during that struggle (and, by struggle, I mean trying to live in a way that God helps you defeat and kill your own self/old man/etc.), God is their judge. I think the believer can find peace and hope in looking forward to a reunion with that person; I don't think the believer should bet the bank on it (nor would they).

[Pastorbps]

There are three groups represented here:

1. There are those who believe as Scooter has pointed out that you are Saved by Grace through faith and an act of sin does not affect that standing NOR does it give evidence to one's standing.

2. Another group are those represented by Dolfan. These people teach you are Saved by Grace through faith and if you Sin (continually or a single big sin) then it gives evidence you were never a Christian.

3. The final group are those represented by Scooter. These people teach you are Saved by Grace through faith and if you sin (continually or a big sin) this gives evidence you were never a Christian OR you were a Christian but you have made a decision to abandon following Christ.

Both group 2 and group 3 disagree with group 1. The real difference between group 2 and group 3 is their definition of sin and the ability one has to walk away from Christ once they have become a Christian.

So for those who believe each of these I will ask a question. A young man accepts Christ (or says he did) at 12 years old. He lives a life trying to serve Christ but one day at 16 years old, he goes out on a date with his girlfriend and they end up having sex. Was the boy...
1. Never Born Again
2. Backslid
3. Still a Christian because fornication has no bearing on one's standing with God.

[dolfan]

There are three groups represented here:

1. There are those who believe as Scooter has pointed out that you are Saved by Grace through faith and an act of sin does not affect that standing NOR does it give evidence to one's standing.

2. Another group are those represented by Dolfan. These people teach you are Saved by Grace through faith and if you Sin (continually or a single big sin) then it gives evidence you were never a Christian.

3. The final group are those represented by Scooter. These people teach you are Saved by Grace through faith and if you sin (continually or a big sin) this gives evidence you were never a Christian OR you were a Christian but you have made a decision to abandon following Christ.

Both group 2 and group 3 disagree with group 1. The real difference between group 2 and group 3 is their definition of sin and the ability one has to walk away from Christ once they have become a Christian.

So for those who believe each of these I will ask a question. A young man accepts Christ (or says he did) at 12 years old. He lives a life trying to serve Christ but one day at 16 years old, he goes out on a date with his girlfriend and they end up having sex. Was the boy...
1. Never Born Again
2. Backslid
3. Still a Christian because fornication has no bearing on one's standing with God.

I can't answer that. I am not trying to cop out. Let me put in there some facts that would guide an answer for me. "He lives a life trying to serve Christ." If that's the case, a lot of other things come into play. Influences, discipleship at home, his overall relationship with authority, and lots of other things. Let's say that it is obvious to all, even those who know him best and know his flaws, that he really is "trying to serve Christ." Then, date sex one day at 16. That act of sin does not define his perseverance in the faith, at least not by itself. What did he do afterward? What did he do about it? I think that's when you can start sizing up this young man's dedication, his faith. If he's still doing that --- date sex --- when he's 26, young Houston probably has an eternity problem. If he repents of it, gets honest with himself about it and makes the hard decision to follow the Lord (in other words, he gets up and keeps going), I'd say #3 EXCEPT I'd never say it "has no bearing". Of course it does. It is serious, it is a sin. God chastises us and corrects us; if that's not having a bearing on something, what is? See, we always go only to that "ultimate question": does this mean I'm not saved? That tells me that we've whittled the whole matter of life with God down to "where will I end up?" Well, I say that there is no end. We believe in eternal life (I'm not talking about eternal security, I mean eternal life for the believer). Eternal means endless. There is no "winding up". We don't "arrive". We may finish the race and get the prize, but as far as we can now know that is only a beginning of something more, something as yet unknowable. We are in the set up for that right now. We are living the life before life. The "period" at the end of our sentence, so to speak, is the death of this mortal body. Many volumes remain, endless ones, to be written by us with God, forever. So, it is childish or even foolish if I whittle all that down to "This kid engages in sexual sin, so where does he wind up?". It is a question that truthfully has no answer, as asked. The real question, the one that can be answered, is, "Does God own this kid's life? Is he the wilful slave of God in Christ?" I don't think you can answer that question definitively by one snapshot in time where he is in a girl's bedroom with her parents away from home. That doesn't minimize or excuse or do anything to make this boy's sin less of what it is. Fornication is sin. He may be closer to your option #1. An instance like this, taken alone, is not going to help us arrive at the question that can be answered. But, framing the issue this way only gives us an illusion that we know the truth about him by this act.

[MacUser]

Philippians 2:12-16

"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure. Do all things without complaining and disputing, that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life, so that I may rejoice in the day of Christ that I have not run in vain or labored in vain."

[Full Quiver]

that you may become blameless and harmless,

Amen, and in religious circles you would be backlsid each and everytime you proved to not yet be blameless and harmless.

[dawgs10]

Scooter, that's not "OSAS"/"eternal security". I personally do not know of one person who is a Christian, who believes in the eternal security of the believer, and who would believe anything close to this guy's whacked out statement.

Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments." You can't keep the commandments without obeying them. That means DOING them. The guy was not leaning on any notion of once saved, always saved. He was leaning on something totally and completely different than the gospel of Jesus Christ. There's not one single Christian, who is truly Christian in any sense of the word, who would teach that God's saving grace allows you to murder people.

Aside from that, John wrote Jesus' words, "By this will all men know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." Plotting a mass murder is not love. "If someone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also" (John 4:20, 21).

This man was NEVER a believer. Never. I don't care if you or anyone else believes that the Christian is always saved. But, don't lump what this guy was and what he did and said in any way to anything amounting to faith in God. This guy was evil, mad, sad, lost, confused, nuts, etc. But one thing he was not: saved.

I'm going to take a second to sort of "go off", but in a friendly way. You folks who keep hammering this issue act as if those of us who DO believe in OSAS/eternal security give sin a pass. It is the exact opposite. You folks who are adamantly of an opposite understanding could be labeled like this: you allow people to just drift in and out of faith like a favorite suit of clothes. "Yeah, I got saved in 1985, but I backslid in 1989, and then I got saved again in 1991, but by 1993 I was doing some hard drugs and not living right, but praise God in 2001 I was saved and even baptized, and had that not happened, then when I fell off the wagon in 2003 I never would've gone back to rehab in 2006 and right now I'm a Christian....". And, evidently, whatever the current profession of someone is, that's it.

That's not my opinion of any of you, by the way. But, I've heard it and seen very similar accounts more than once. And, if that person is currently "in", then we're all sweetness and light about them. That's just baloney. But, since we're all eager to hatch unusual examples to try and typify the whole of something, let's do that in both directions to be fair.

Well, what does the Bible say? A double-minded man is unstable in all of his ways. You cannot serve two masters. Let's hear the end of the matter: fear God and keep his commandments. Well, folks, that's works.

Jesus said:

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day." John 6:37-39.

And,

"He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him." John 14:15.

John also wrote, "And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments." 2 John 1:6.

Salvation is about works. How can we demonstrate that we have faith but for our works? James said, "Faith without works is dead." What we DO matters. It is the evidence of the faith that is within us --- or, in the case of the Pa. shooter, the faith that is not.

So, if not one person who lurks or posts here believes in OSAS, great! There's not one place in the Bible that says you must ascribe to that view as opposed to yours, nor one that says it vice versa. There's not even a good, systematic way to conclusively, absolutely garner together all the bible has to say on that topic and finally and authoritatively once and for all say in either direction. We do the best we can in understanding these things.

the stance that your were never saved to start with is just another type of OSAS. people just cant understand that if you sin after the knowledge of the truth there remains no more sacrafice for sin. heb 10:26

[dolfan]

dawgs, I'm honestly not sure what you mean by your first sentence, but I do understand the second. So, what about this: what of those who say they were saved, but backslid, and now return and say, "Okay, now I'm saved. I knew the truth, but I backslid, and now I'm back." If (big IF) I understand your view of Heb. 10:26 correctly, a person in that position cannot become "re-saved". OSNrS? (once saved, never re-saved?) Help me out with that.

[dawgs10]

there is scripture that covers this as well. my little children, these things write I unto you that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. in other words if we sin and repent after salvation there is a advocate. the first sentence i wrote in my last post is simple. those that defend osas uses two toughts normaly. the first is you can be saved live however you want and the blood of Jesus covers sins, past, present, and future. the other view is if you are saved (really saved you never sin, so if you sin you were never saved to start with). this is equally wrong and not found to be true in the word of God. there is to much teaching to churchs found in the book of rev. telling them to repent to believe that you can not sin after salvation. is it right to sin after salvation (no) does it happen, we all know the answer is yes in some cases.

[dolfan]

there is scripture that covers this as well. my little children, these things write I unto you that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. in other words if we sin and repent after salvation there is a advocate. the first sentence i wrote in my last post is simple. those that defend osas uses two toughts normaly. the first is you can be saved live however you want and the blood of Jesus covers sins, past, present, and future. the other view is if you are saved (really saved you never sin, so if you sin you were never saved to start with). this is equally wrong and not found to be true in the word of God. there is to much teaching to churchs found in the book of rev. telling them to repent to believe that you can not sin after salvation. is it right to sin after salvation (no) does it happen, we all know the answer is yes in some cases.

So, which is it? We have an advocate if we sin after salvation, but no more sacrifice? I mean, you've said it both ways, here.

And, I am just going to have to disagree on what "OSAS" "normally teaches". There is not one credible Christian leader, teacher, pastor, scholar, etc. who teaches that if you are saved you can then live however you want and the blood of Jesus has got your eternal fate sewn up to be with Him forever. There's just not. And, while I agree that the letters to the Asian churches in Revelation certainly addressed their need for repentance, those letters are nowhere near standing for the proposition that any sin after salvation means you need to be saved again.

Look, I've gotten off into a rut on this topic. I am not going to turn this thread into a defense of eternal security of the believer or an attack on Arminianism or whatever. My original point was to respond to Scooter's connection of the Pa. shooter's insane, wrong and hellish lie to the doctrine of eternal security. There is no connection. What that guy wrote, and what he thought, was way off base. If anyone teaches as you say they do, "repent then live like the devil" kind of thing, then that person is a heretic. Avoid them, I don't care what their label is. I can tell you one thing, though: John Calvin wouldn't have anything to do with that doctrine of devils.

There are also those who are doubly frantic, who hold, under this pretense, that, everything is lawful to the faithful, that is, because John says that they cannot sin. They then maintain that we may follow indiscriminately whatever our inclinations may lead us to. Thus they take the liberty to commit adultery, to steal, and to murder, because there can be no sin where God's Spirit reigns. But far otherwise is the meaning of the Apostle; for he denies that the faithful sin for this reason, because God has engraven his law on their hearts, according to what the Prophet says (Jeremiah 31:33.)

John Calvin, Commentary on the Catholic Epistles



Let me add this question: Which is more permanent: God's unity with His children or a man's unity with his wife? Here's my reason for that question. There is a considerable percentage of people who post and lurk here who believe that marriage is intended to be and, in fact, is one man, one woman for life. They believe that human, civil divorce does not destroy the one-flesh-ness of the marriage bond once that bond is made. How is it, then, that God can "divorce" a believer? I say He doesn't; He is more faithful to His own calling of us and His own redemption of us to Himself than we are to Him or to one another. I say that if a person is truly converted, really actually born again, he is a new creature and doesn't become the old creature again. That doesn't mean the new creature is perfect and never misses the mark; we know better. That does mean, though, that the newly born person is a different kind of person, and that as he grows into the character of Christ, he becomes less and less the person that inhabits this corruptible and more and more like the One who has already put on the incorruptible. Comparing ourselves with one another on this is, as Paul said, "not wise". Comparing where a man is now to where he was before he was born again .... now that's another matter. If there's no difference, there's a reason ---- he ain't been changed. If he isn't changed, he isn't a follower of the Lord.

NOTE: Please do not read into the above anything about my views about the permanency of marriage. I'm married to the one woman I married 21 years ago, and I lose her for any reason, then I've made up my mind that that's all she wrote on me and marrying. I don't want anyone else. If you're in a different situation, that's between you, God and your church. My views are strictly mine. There's no intent in that analogy to conclude anything about marriage vows. But, it is interesting that those who decry the permanency of God's union with us tend to treat that union as less than the one between a man and his wife.