Christian - Once Saved Always Saved?

[dhiannian]

If I lost my salvation everytime I commited a sin I'd be a pretty frantic stressed out person.
Since man is flesh, and flesh is weak, How then could we keep ourselves from sinning?
I know I sin every day, but commiting A sin, and commiting continual sin are 2 very differant things.
Romans 6:6 says Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Now it doesn't say we should not sin, But that we won't serve sin.
Salvation sets us free, yet we will still sin because "There is none rightious no not one" Romans 3:10, and Romans 3:23 says For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. In 1st Peter 2:24 it says that Christ "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead unto sins, should live unto rightiousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
Now if we can commit a sin, and become (again) dead unto sins, Why did Jesus die?
If we can save ourselves, why did we need the sacrafice of his blood to wash away our sins?
In Galations 3:11-12 it says"But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, the just shall live by faith. and the law is not of faith: but the man that doeth them shall live in them (Not being a good person and trying to be without sin as only God is, so I conclude a human can be as powerful as God if we can save ourselves through works, That mean that what Jesus did on that tree, he thought was for us, but he didn't know we didn't need him, and that we could save ourselves, So his death was a waste.....Right????
haha I can't believe how prideful/foolish people are to think they have the same power as the creator of all.)
This claim that you have to keep yourself saved: is denying the power of God.
Ephesians 2:6-9 For by GRACE are ye saved through FAITH: and that not of yourselves: it is the GIFT of God. NOT of WORKS lest any man should boast.
I think Jesus wants the praise and glory for what he did. God is a jealous God, He do'es not share credit for his free gift with you.
So if God cannot alone save us, then Jesus was a liar, and if there was no sin in him: how could he lie?
Concerning the scripture, God is perfect and he would not have given us a corrupted bible, Man in his own tiny mind also thinks they should correct God by creating version after version of God's word, changing whatever they don't like about his word. I can't believe the stuff I'm hearing, so if a person(an unsaved king) had the bible translated into our language so that we too could have the word of God, then he must have done it to control the people and it must be perverted: right?? So God could not have had a hand in translating the bible into our language? God can do whatever he pleases. Proverbs 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.
Isaiah 40:8 The word of our God shall stand FOREVER.
God would not have deprieved his children of what they need to survive, He's not willing that any should perish.
He is perfect, Not us
Proverbs 30: 5-6
2nd Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost

 

[No*s]

1. Excommunication verses

Christ told Peter, "I also say you are Peter, and on this Rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give to you the keys of the kingdomof heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Mt. 16.18-19).

As an Orthodox Christian, I believe the rock is Christ, and the Church is built upon Him. The key, though, is that He passed down authority to the Apostles with Peter preeminent. This authority continued on. The authority to bind and to loose cannot be applied in any way except salvation...unless someone wants to admit that there are other eternal consequences. Thus, whomever the Church excommunicates, those people have also been banned in heaven. This is incompatible with OSAS.

The Corinthians were having problem with a sexually immoral man, so Paul chastised them in I Corinthians 5.1ff. The specific portion of the chastisement relevant to the discussion is where he says, "deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved i the day of the Lord Jesus."

This definately presupposes that the man is in danger. It also presupposes that by cutting him off from the community, it is believed that it could draw him back into the community and thus repent. There are other, more brutal, interpretations possible. What they all assume is that by cutting him off, the Corinthians would somehow be safeguarding his salvation. Nothing of the sort would be neccessary in OSAS.

Both of these verses presuppose a Church structure like that of the Orthodox Church or Catholic Church. Anything else wouldn't have teeth. Just kick him out of First Baptist for his health, and he'll go to Second Baptist or the Church of Christ.

2. The olive branches grafted in.

In Romans 10-11, Paul discusses Israel with a metaphor of an olive tree. The natural branches (Israelites that reject Christ) were cut off on account of this rejection. OTOH, wild olive branches were grafted in (the Gentiles).

Paul, though, offers a caveat against the wild branches in Romans 11.17-21:

if someof the branches were broken off, an dyou, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches; But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, `Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.' Well said. Because of unbeleif they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.

Paul is here clearly arguing that if they get prideful and boastful they are endangering their salvation, and God "may not spare" them either. He couldn't even approach such a warning if he believed in OSAS.

I'm not going to barrage the board with Scripture. If more are desired, I'll provide more. I would rather provide a small amount at a time and defend my interpretations. We can see more accurately how soundly my interpretation of Scripture is with this method.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Yeah,

Jesus made it VERY apparent that we will prune that which does not produce fruit. I'm just glad he doesn't prune with a shovel.

 

[chris9178]

According to the beliefs of many here, Chris 9178 is no longer saved (if he ever was)- he has not treated me with love according to the Bible 1Cor 13:4-7 nor has he loved his neighbor as himself. If you tack works on to salvation then you have to wonder- when do you become unsaved?

Didn't Jesus rebuke Peter and call him the son of the devil? I don't think I went so far as that with you, did I? There's a big difference between rebuking a person and not loving.
In fact, lets stay in the book of Corinthians...

I Corinthians 4
20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. 21 What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?

The verses alone should would look enough like they support what I'm saying. Now if you take the verse in context, (by reading the rest of the chapter...) then you'll understand that Paul is visiting them soon and will come either of those three ways, depending on which will be effective. Yet all three are still in love.
Anyways, you'll just have to get over your hurt feelings. I think it's a common axium that "the Truth hurts" Let's see.... I believe a proper verse that may apply here would be:

I Corinthians 13:11
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

In other words, grow up.

Am I unsaved when I steal a paperclip? Am I unsaved when I say something mean to
someone (as Chris9178 did)? Do I become half-saved... gee this concept of salvation is pretty wishy_washy...

You may have noticed that I posed the same basic question.

Well, I dare say that I used more than one verse in my argument- did you use ANY Chris 9178?

I don't recall trying to defend either side. Does one need scripture to stay neutral? OK, well I'm certainly not neutral, I'm biased to one side, but I can put away that bias in order to LEARN something. So I can freely rationalize one's logic, or lack of, without quoting scripture. If you re-read the post I too asked some questions that would fall on your side of the line.

By the way, you can call me Chris. No need for formalities......

 

[keevelish]

Actually, Chris, my feelings are not hurt, but no I don't believe what you are saying is truth, sorry. I was just making a point that if someone can be unsaved we have to understand what point we are not saved anymore- we have to make a distinction as to when we are unsaved- not by man's distinctions, but by God's. So we have to go back to the law- that's our distinction and our rule book- BUT NO ONE has EVER kept the law except Jesus Christ himself. "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23. Everyone sins every day- so what- do we become unsaved every time we sin? If that's the case I'd just hole myself up in my room and ask Jesus to save me perpetually- wouldn't be much use to God then would I? Wouldn't be able to be an effective servant for him if I was always fearing for my salvation then would I?

 

[Scott1]

OSAS?

As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."


www.catholic.com
Scott

 

[No*s]

Actually Scott, your post brings up an interesting point about Greek. The present doesn't distinguish between progressive and aoristic types of action. We can do this in English with our analytical structure, but Greek didn't have it. There's a couple of ways where the idea could be expressed, but even in places where constructions exist that could be used that way...there are alternative explanations.

 

[Scott1]

Yes sir..... that's the sad part about our separated bretheren in the non-Orthodox denominations.... it's hard to read your English, hardback, highlighted, complete with maps etc-Bible and realize that you are not the first person to ever read this stuff!

God bless them.... pray for unity.

Scott

 

[No*s]

Indeed. I certainly hope it happens, and in a good wholesome fashion .

 

[Scuba Pete]

realize that you are not the first person to ever read this stuff!

You know, the Spirit has a way to make you feel really special like that!

 

[Scott1]

You know, the Spirit has a way to make you feel really special like that!

Yes, my friend, it does.... the problem is discernment, and not everyone has the blessings that God gave you..... iris89 ring any bells?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Did you HAVE to bring her up??? She is on my ignore list for a reason! The best way to deal with temptation is to completely avoid it!

 

[Scott1]

Ahhhhhh if we only had an ignore button in real life!

 

[chris9178]

No*s wrote:
OSAS is a compenent crafted into 5-Point Calvinism.....................

I finally read through all of the posts today....
You talk about doctrine and that it can't be split up and still maintain its integrity. Well, I don't have any problem with that at the moment. Sounds sensible enough, but if OSAS is true, then its doctrine doesn't originate with John Calvin. You and I can only see him as a propagator of that "doctrine", but certainly not the originator. If it's true (OSAS), then it's doctrine would indeed be from verses in the scripture, (maybe some of those already quoted on this board) and therefore date back to the 1st century. Calvin merely used it to support his own TULIP idea. SO, if OSAS is true, then it's been around long before Calvin associated it with pre-destination (which itself seems completely unlike the God we read in scriptures.....), so the one (OSAS) can do perfectly well without the other.

Keevelish said,
Actually, Chris, my feelings are not hurt, but no I don't believe what you are saying is truth, sorry.

Glad to hear that. And again, I haven't said anything yet about once saved always saved.

I was just making a point that if someone can be unsaved we have to understand what point we are not saved anymore- we have to make a distinction as to when we are unsaved- not by man's distinctions, but by God's. So we have to go back to the law- that's our distinction and our rule book- BUT NO ONE has EVER kept the law except Jesus Christ himself. "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23. Everyone sins every day- so what- do we become unsaved every time we sin? If that's the case I'd just hole myself up in my room and ask Jesus to save me perpetually- wouldn't be much use to God then would I? Wouldn't be able to be an effective servant for him if I was always fearing for my salvation then would I?

I asked the same question. Does anybody have any theories on where the line would be drawn? When would one lose their salvation? Do you believe that all sin is equal, and therefore has equal consequence?

 

[Scuba Pete]

OK, you are flying along and you sin... you leave the plane in shame. You are doomed to die.

But hey, someone offers you a parachute. YOU ARE SAVED. But you still are a sinner. You still sin! The ONLY thing saving your butt is that parachute. You are completely fine until when? Until when YOU decide that you don't need no steenkeeng parachute anymore.

Now THAT'S an oopsie!

But there is still time to get that parachute back.

 

[No*s]

I finally read through all of the posts today....
You talk about doctrine and that it can't be split up and still maintain its integrity. Well, I don't have any problem with that at the moment. Sounds sensible enough, but if OSAS is true, then its doctrine doesn't originate with John Calvin. You and I can only see him as a propagator of that "doctrine", but certainly not the originator. If it's true (OSAS), then it's doctrine would indeed be from verses in the scripture, (maybe some of those already quoted on this board) and therefore date back to the 1st century. Calvin merely used it to support his own TULIP idea. SO, if OSAS is true, then it's been around long before Calvin associated it with pre-destination (which itself seems completely unlike the God we read in scriptures.....), so the one (OSAS) can do perfectly well without the other.

This is quite true, but it depends on that big "if it is true," and if this thread is any indicator, it is not. Since we both acknowledge its dependency on Calvinism now, it also creates a new impetus. If we are to regard it as true, then we must find a form that isn't dependent on Calvinism, or we must embrace Calvinism. However, I don't think the former possiblity is possible, and I certainly don't feel Calvinism is representitive. This lends strong pressure to a "No, it is not true."

Take note also, that the OSAS side hasn't really provided a strong argument. The nay-sayers, though, haven't yet been faced with a series of strong arguments to refute our positions. This, again, lends strength to saying "No, it's not true."

I asked the same question. Does anybody have any theories on where the line would be drawn? When would one lose their salvation? Do you believe that all sin is equal, and therefore has equal consequence?

The simple answer: Don't try. Salvation isn't some process where God keeps a tab and says, "OK, look at John Doe. He is nine sins away from forfeiting his salvation. Let's see if he counter-balances the situation." Salvation is more organic than that, and I don't think you can draw a clear line of demarcation on when someone ceases to be a Christian. Leave that to God.

On equal consequence, I say both yes and no. All sins rebel against the Creator, and are equal from that standpoint. However, a slip of the tongue and cursing, doesn't have nearly the consequences of raping someone and infecting them with AIDS. The latter destroys communion between men and between God and man far worse, because its psychological consequences are. For those reasons, I say both yes and no to that question.

 

[chris9178]

I wrote out a lengthy response in the "Quick Reply" and then pressed "Post a Reply"...... needless to say, I lost everything I had written. I don't feel like typing it all out again. Anyways, I agree with you on most of your points.

 

[No*s]

I wrote out a lengthy response in the "Quick Reply" and then pressed "Post a Reply"...... needless to say, I lost everything I had written. I don't feel like typing it all out again. Anyways, I agree with you on most of your points.

I understand . I hate it when that happens to me.

 

[keevelish]

However, a slip of the tongue and cursing, doesn't have nearly the consequences of raping someone and infecting them with AIDS. The latter destroys communion between men and between God and man far worse, because its psychological consequences are. For those reasons, I say both yes and no to that question.

God set a standard and humanity fails to meet that standard. Whether or not one person is closer to meeting that standard than another by how few sins he has committed is not an issue. "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23- no one is good enough; everyone has failed. God set the law in the O.T. as a way for man to be righteous and have fellowship with God, but man cannot keep the law. Regardless of which sin a person commits, that person is just as separated from God as any other sinner. There is no line of demarcation as to when a person is unsaved because every person here would be unsaved every day due to sins- even the smallest one. God is no respecter of persons. So then we would have to ask to be saved every day and worry about our salvation every day- because we would lose it every single time we had a dirty thought, or spoke harshly to someone, or didn't read our Bible that night or got jealous of someone. We wouldn't be able to do any servitude for God at all.

 

[No*s]

God set a standard and humanity fails to meet that standard. Whether or not one person is closer to meeting that standard than another by how few sins he has committed is not an issue. "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23- no one is good enough; everyone has failed. God set the law in the O.T. as a way for man to be righteous and have fellowship with God, but man cannot keep the law. Regardless of which sin a person commits, that person is just as separated from God as any other sinner. There is no line of demarcation as to when a person is unsaved because every person here would be unsaved every day due to sins- even the smallest one. God is no respecter of persons. So then we would have to ask to be saved every day and worry about our salvation every day- because we would lose it every single time we had a dirty thought, or spoke harshly to someone, or didn't read our Bible that night or got jealous of someone. We wouldn't be able to do any servitude for God at all.

Nobody disputes that we fall short of the glory of God. Now, if I thought salvation was a matter of simply balancing a debt of what we owe for our sins, I'd be inclined to agree with you, but the problem isn't just a matter of forgiveness. It's a matter of what we are. Remember, the same Paul who wrote this also commanded us to "work out our faith in fear and trembling" and even feared that he might be discredited. It would seem, then, that your interpretation of the verse doesn't fit with what else Paul has written.

It also paints a pretty nasty picture of God. God, suddenly, becomes someone that nitpicks so much, that he says "Look! There's Mary! She just spoke curtly to her parents. Granted, she was just beaten up in school, called all sorts of names, and got an F on the project she worked hard on...but she still did it. Nix her off the salvation list." I know you don't believe that, and OSAS is the way you avoid it.

As a result, you ask me to accept Pen-Sub (and the completely unsubstantiated OSAS, as this thread has torn it to shreds). So, the solution you have to the situation is that God has to hit God just so that God can forgive us without holding anything back. That scenario was created by Anslem of Canterbury using some of Augustine's concepts.

I much prefer the way of thinking that we are sick and dying...and only communion with God can save us, so God comes down and becomes man to deliver us. As the ancient Christian hymn in Pascha says, "Christ, by death, conquered death." Now, since I follow this that Christ is healing us...then one sin doesn't destroy the whole state over night, and God isn't counting beans.