The beginning of salvation

[atwhatcost]

Now I don't want this to be an OSAS or not debate but I do want to address something that is quite a big difference between OSAS believers.

It is the starting point at salvation.

The calvinist may believe in OSAS but never actual call for salvation... how is this biblical?

Is not the biblical example.. BELIEVE in Jesus Christ.. call for salvation.. and then you are eternally saved?

The person is of course convicted by the Holy Spirit first.. but I do not believe.. nor do I believe the bible teaches that this is irresistable.

If Romans 10-- is NOT an act of free will to call for salvation from Jesus to be eternally saved... then what is it?



I am neither Calvinist nor Armenian.. I believe the bible teaches that salvation IS called for.. by free will after being convicted by the Holy Spirit.

I also believe contrary to the armenian that this is completely eternally secure.

Anyway..


I don't know where in the bible the idea is that a person cannot actually call for salvation in the first place. Surely the likes of Romans chapter 10 are a direct contradiction to that teaching.

Well, it really would help to understand what Calvinist really do believe versus what you think we believe. Calvinist believe in TULIP.
Each of those letters mean something, and it wasn't arranged in that order to make a pretty Acrostic.

Total depravity. (The condition of Man.)
Unconditional Election. (What God did because of total depravity.)
Limited Atonement. (God doesn't save all, yet he, indeed, saves some.)
Irresistible Grace. (How he saves, and definitely not "free will.")
Perseverance of the Saints. (Which includes OSAS AND YET, it certainly doesn't mean stop off for an altar call to win your free Eternal Paradise Vacation package. God persevere for his saints, and yet his saints must persevere in him too.)

So, no, "BELIEVE in Jesus Christ.. call for salvation.. and then you are eternally saved" is not Biblical. Salvation is the cause for believe. We are not saved by belief or will, we are saved by God.

So, yeah, it really helps to know what the Calivinist belief is before you decide whether we are right or wrong.

 

[ChrisHill]

With regards to soul sleep, a counterargument would be this verse:

2 Cor 5:8 Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

Note that this cannot be referring to the resurrection, as the spirit will be joined to the body, and the body will be glorified.

By the way, I am not saying that soul sleep is incorrect..I could mount an argument on either side, and Martin Luther held the position of soul sleep.

The body Paul wanted to be away from was not his new body, rather, that old tent he had =) In which case, it doesn't counter the argument at all. This is an interpretation, of course, but Paul was looking forward to that new body pretty optimistically. The new body, while spiritual, is still flesh, as Jesus showed them his.

I would much rather interpret the verse you quoted as Paul wanted to just be done with his tribulations at that point than try and reinterpret all of Psalm 37.

 

[KennethC]

With regards to soul sleep, a counterargument would be this verse:

2 Cor 5:8 Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

Note that this cannot be referring to the resurrection, as the spirit will be joined to the body, and the body will be glorified.

By the way, I am not saying that soul sleep is incorrect..I could mount an argument on either side, and Martin Luther held the position of soul sleep.

What body are you speaking on ???

Because the bible says our bodies of flesh and blood can not inherit the kingdom of heaven......1 Corinthians 15:50

Then it says at the gathering (catching away) we are transformed in a blink of an eye into immortal eternal bodies.......1 Corinthians 15:52-53


Our bodies of flesh and blood that we are walking around in right now are corrupted mortal bodies that will return to the dust it was made from. Our soul that is in these bodies is what is in jeopardy, and by our active faith in the Lord we will have eternal life; But those who do not believe or are disobedient will be sent to eternal punishment !!!

 

[Kaycie]

It is so important to consider all scriptures in order to understand the full meaning- for you can't fit the whole word of God into one sentence. The point in Romans 10 is that if you don't even believe, then how can you obey? But take a closer look at Romans 10:13, what does it mean to call on the name of the Lord? Let's take a look at Acts 22:16. Notice that Paul had fasted, believed, prayed, etc- none of which was calling on the name of the Lord. It was baptism that Ananias told Paul was calling on the name of the Lord.

 

[Gr8grace]

Now I don't want this to be an OSAS or not debate but I do want to address something that is quite a big difference between OSAS believers.

It is the starting point at salvation.

The calvinist may believe in OSAS but never actual call for salvation... how is this biblical?

Is not the biblical example.. BELIEVE in Jesus Christ.. call for salvation.. and then you are eternally saved?

The person is of course convicted by the Holy Spirit first.. but I do not believe.. nor do I believe the bible teaches that this is irresistable.

If Romans 10-- is NOT an act of free will to call for salvation from Jesus to be eternally saved... then what is it?



I am neither Calvinist nor Armenian.. I believe the bible teaches that salvation IS called for.. by free will after being convicted by the Holy Spirit.

I also believe contrary to the armenian that this is completely eternally secure.

Anyway..


I don't know where in the bible the idea is that a person cannot actually call for salvation in the first place. Surely the likes of Romans chapter 10 are a direct contradiction to that teaching.

And wattie, I was taught under calvinism. So you will get " you just don't know" or "study up, your misrepresenting calvinism!"

You have the logical conclusion to the end of calvinsim. Most, like I did ,will try to keep you in the middle of the logic so we don't have to deal with the nuts and bolts of the conclusion of the logic.

 

[Grandpa]

And wattie, I was taught under calvinism. So you will get " you just don't know" or "study up, your misrepresenting calvinism!"

You have the logical conclusion to the end of calvinsim. Most, like I did ,will try to keep you in the middle of the logic so we don't have to deal with the nuts and bolts of the conclusion of the logic.

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The Lord Jesus said that. Not Calvin.

And yes. For most, the problem is a lack of understanding.

I don't think there is a problem with the logic of Calvin. I think it is a problem with peoples emotions wishing everyone could be saved by their own free will.

John 6:64-66
[SUP]64 [/SUP]But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
[SUP]65 [/SUP]And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
[SUP]66 [/SUP]From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

I suppose it is hard to take in.

 

[sparkman]

The body Paul wanted to be away from was not his new body, rather, that old tent he had =) In which case, it doesn't counter the argument at all. This is an interpretation, of course, but Paul was looking forward to that new body pretty optimistically. The new body, while spiritual, is still flesh, as Jesus showed them his.

I would much rather interpret the verse you quoted as Paul wanted to just be done with his tribulations at that point than try and reinterpret all of Psalm 37.

Like I said, I could argue both sides of the topic in this regard. So, I neither deny nor affirm either position.

Neither side can conclusively prove it's position.

The sad thing is that some cults make merchandise of this ambiguity, and also the ambiguity concerning annihilationism, in order to gain membership. Those who are deceived by them don't realize that there are individuals in the orthodox church who held soul sleep, such as Martin Luther, and those who held annihilationism, like respected theologian John Stott and much of the Academy..the theological core of UK.

 

[ChrisHill]

Like I said, I could argue both sides of the topic in this regard. So, I neither deny nor affirm either position.

Neither side can conclusively prove it's position.

The sad thing is that some cults make merchandise of this ambiguity, and also the ambiguity concerning annihilationism, in order to gain membership. Those who are deceived by them don't realize that there are individuals in the orthodox church who held soul sleep, such as Martin Luther, and those who held annihilationism, like respected theologian John Stott and much of the Academy..the theological core of UK.

So I've never heard Psalm 37 explained from a non-annihilationism point of view. Would you happen to know how they see it?

 

[sparkman]

I suspect they would say that the general message is that ultimately the righteous will endure and the wicked will not, and the precise details are not laid out. OT scripture is very vague on the exact state of the wicked and the righteous actually. There are hints here and there but they are vague.

NT is more explicit, but I don't think that all of the questions are answered there either.

However, saying that, I do think that annihilationism deserves a more serious examination than most have given it.

If you really want to see a good book on this topic from individuals who hold the eternal torment view, but are open-minded, check out Erasing Hell by Francis Chan. His conclusion is that while he holds the eternal torment view, he cannot eliminate the possibility that annihilationism is correct. My view would be the opposite. I don't think the eternal torment view is correct, but I cannot eliminate the possibility that it is not. The reason why I think the eternal torment view is not correct is the use of language indicating finality, including destroy, destruction, perish, and death. All of these things indicate finality to me.

The eternal torment view has the weight of church history behind it, but we know that the church has been wrong on things in the past, such as justification by faith alone.

Neither side deals adequately with the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. If you look at the parable, it seems to indicate that the rich man's brothers had not made their decision yet, so this indicates the parable is teaching that after the wicked dies, they are going directly to a place of torment. This seems to refute the soul sleep/annihilationist perspective.

I belonged to a group that taught annihilationism so I know their counter-argument, but it doesn't do justice to the parable either. My point is that when you look at all the Scriptures, neither view is totally bulletproof.

I am divorcing this issue from any emotional considerations as I am totally about sola Scriptura.

So I've never heard Psalm 37 explained from a non-annihilationism point of view. Would you happen to know how they see it?

 

[Gr8grace]

John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 12:32~~New American Standard Bible
"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

The Lord Jesus said that. Not Calvin.

And yes. For most, the problem is a lack of understanding.

I don't think there is a problem with the logic of Calvin. I think it is a problem with peoples emotions wishing everyone could be saved by their own free will.

John 6:64-66
[SUP]64 [/SUP]But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
[SUP]65 [/SUP]And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
[SUP]66 [/SUP]From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

I suppose it is hard to take in.

Its actually pretty simple. He is not willing for any to perish so...........

Jesus Christ tore the veil in the temple........He did something about our depravity. He got rid of our sin and ANY man can go to God.

The Father drew ALL men to Himself through the Cross and His Son. The Cross is open for all to see.

John 12:32~~New American Standard Bible
"And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself."

This is why we know no man by the flesh. We know all men as one whom Christ died for.

2 Cor 5~~ 14 For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; 15 and He died for all, so that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf. 16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer.

Sin is finished, this is why all men can approach God.

This is hard to take in.

 

[ChrisHill]

I suspect they would say that the general message is that ultimately the righteous will endure and the wicked will not, and the precise details are not laid out. OT scripture is very vague on the exact state of the wicked and the righteous actually. There are hints here and there but they are vague.

NT is more explicit, but I don't think that all of the questions are answered there either.

However, saying that, I do think that annihilationism deserves a more serious examination than most have given it.

If you really want to see a good book on this topic from individuals who hold the eternal torment view, but are open-minded, check out Erasing Hell by Francis Chan. His conclusion is that while he holds the eternal torment view, he cannot eliminate the possibility that annihilationism is correct. My view would be the opposite. I don't think the eternal torment view is correct, but I cannot eliminate the possibility that it is not. The reason why I think the eternal torment view is not correct is the use of language indicating finality, including destroy, destruction, perish, and death. All of these things indicate finality to me.

The eternal torment view has the weight of church history behind it, but we know that the church has been wrong on things in the past, such as justification by faith alone.

Neither side deals adequately with the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. If you look at the parable, it seems to indicate that the rich man's brothers had not made their decision yet, so this indicates the parable is teaching that after the wicked dies, they are going directly to a place of torment. This seems to refute the soul sleep/annihilationist perspective.

I belonged to a group that taught annihilationism so I know their counter-argument, but it doesn't do justice to the parable either. My point is that when you look at all the Scriptures, neither view is totally bulletproof.

I am divorcing this issue from any emotional considerations as I am totally about sola Scriptura.

How do we eliminate possibilities of interpretation? My general method is this:

[1 Timothy 6:20 NKJV] O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane [and] idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge--

Don't let interpretations contradict, always go with the interpretation that doesn't contradict really clear statements.

[Isaiah 28:10 NKJV] For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little."

Build upon precepts first, then lines, then here a little there a little. For instance, the parable you speak of, it's the only place in the entire Bible we find anything even close to a description like that. And, it's a parable. So the story isn't a 'true story that actually happened.' These two thing would classify it, to me, as 'here a little there a little'. I certainly don't think we could call that parable a 'precept' of the Bible. Death is the penalty for sin. That's a precept =)

What do you think?

 

[tribesman]

Now I don't want this to be an OSAS or not debate but I do want to address something that is quite a big difference between OSAS believers.

It is the starting point at salvation.

The calvinist may believe in OSAS but never actual call for salvation... how is this biblical?...

This discussion is called Ordo Salutis. Dunno what sort of calvinists you've met. Very few would deny that need you speak of, rather they want to be consequently scriptural and say that the calling for salvation, as you call it, is a result, a fruit, of God already having worked in them by quickening them from the spiritually dead. I'd say that Romans 10 is about what a saved person does rather than a formula that someone follows and causes God to save him.

[h=3]John.1[/h][11] He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
[12] But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
[13] Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[MarcR]

To be honest, a Calvinist is a practical Arminian when it comes to evangelizing or talking to a seeker. By the way I dislike the word Calvinist. Monergist is a much better word. I have never read a book by John Calvin but I am a monergist.

The only difference is that the monergist views salvation as God's work from beginning to end, and has confidence that God's work is not a matter of randomness, but that he is confident to bring that person to faith, from the initial point to the completion. This is reflected in the golden chain of redemption in Romans 8:28-30. God speaks of the salvation of those he saves as if it is past tense.

Monergists have confidence that God knows what he is doing, and that he is capable of bringing the worst sinner to faith. Paul would be a very good example. Despite his fierce persecution of Christians, he was easily brought to submission by God on the Road To Damascus. It took knocking him off his donkey and blinding him to get his attention, but he was able to accomplish it with ease. I don't think any of us is any bigger challenge to God than the Apostle Paul.

At any rate, man's responsibility and God's sovereignty is a great mystery even though Scripture teaches both. I am also convinced that no man suffers eternal punishment without deserving it, and that no Christian can boast of anything regarding his salvation. Exactly how all that works out is beyond me.

Ephesians 2:8-9 clearly says that all parts of salvation are a gift from God, including the faith that enables him to respond. Repentance is also given by God.

The amazing thing is that God himself gives us faith (Acts 16:14, Ephesians 2:8-9, 2 Peter 1:1, Philippians 1:29, Acts 3:16) and grants us repentance (Acts 11:18, 2 Timothy 2:25).Those who are saved have nothing to boast about whatsoever because of this; it is not about human works (Romans 3:20, 27-28, 4:5, 1 Corinthians 1:31, Galatians 2:16).Salvation is God’s work.

I am somewhere between Sparkman and Wattie on this.

I believe that God is totally sovereign. I believe that God has chosen the redeemed before they were even conceived.

I believe that God chooses to base his choosing on uninfluenced foreknowledge of our response to Jesus' payment of one's sin debt.

I don't believe that God is obliged to choose on this basis; but I believe that He is obliged to choose on this basis; but I believe that He does.

 

[sparkman]

I think you'd better examine that "precept on precept" concept.

That was a favorite quotation of Herbert Armstrong, the leader of the cult I was a part of, before His gracious deliverance.

The fact that you use that Scripture to "prove" your hermeneutics indicates you don't read very well in context.

Isaiah 28:10 For it is precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little.”

Isaiah 28:13 And the word of the LORD will be to them precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a little, there a little, that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.

So, applying that hermeneutic resulted in bad stuff...not proper understanding. Notice that the guys who teach this concept NEVER read from Isaiah 28:13..they read from Isaiah 28:10. It's because they are theological and hermeneutical dunces.

Isaiah 28:10 is basically about a drunkard's sarcastic mocking of Isaiah's preaching. It is an imitation of a young child's babbling. They were making fun of his preaching when they said that. He turned their mocking back on them.

Usually what false teachers do is use it as an excuse to "collapse the context"; to connect two unrelated passages of Scripture together to eisegete his own desired meaning into the passage. That's what Herbert Armstrong used that verse as a license to do.

How do we eliminate possibilities of interpretation? My general method is this:

[1 Timothy 6:20 NKJV] O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane [and] idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge--

Don't let interpretations contradict, always go with the interpretation that doesn't contradict really clear statements.

[Isaiah 28:10 NKJV] For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little."

Build upon precepts first, then lines, then here a little there a little. For instance, the parable you speak of, it's the only place in the entire Bible we find anything even close to a description like that. And, it's a parable. So the story isn't a 'true story that actually happened.' These two thing would classify it, to me, as 'here a little there a little'. I certainly don't think we could call that parable a 'precept' of the Bible. Death is the penalty for sin. That's a precept =)

What do you think?

 

[sparkman]

This is the classical Arminian position. I am to the point with it that I just plead ignorance on how God does his choosing. I know that election, predestination, and chose are used repetitively in Scripture so I know election is a valid concept.

I am somewhere between Sparkman and Wattie on this.

I believe that God is totally sovereign. I believe that God has chosen the redeemed before they were even conceived.

I believe that God chooses to base his choosing on uninfluenced foreknowledge of our response to Jesus' payment of one's sin debt.

I don't believe that God is obliged to choose on this basis; but I believe that He is obliged to choose on this basis; but I believe that He does.

 

[wattie]

Well, it really would help to understand what Calvinist really do believe versus what you think we believe. Calvinist believe in TULIP.
Each of those letters mean something, and it wasn't arranged in that order to make a pretty Acrostic.

Total depravity. (The condition of Man.)
Unconditional Election. (What God did because of total depravity.)
Limited Atonement. (God doesn't save all, yet he, indeed, saves some.)
Irresistible Grace. (How he saves, and definitely not "free will.")
Perseverance of the Saints. (Which includes OSAS AND YET, it certainly doesn't mean stop off for an altar call to win your free Eternal Paradise Vacation package. God persevere for his saints, and yet his saints must persevere in him too.)

So, no, "BELIEVE in Jesus Christ.. call for salvation.. and then you are eternally saved" is not Biblical. Salvation is the cause for believe. We are not saved by belief or will, we are saved by God.

So, yeah, it really helps to know what the Calivinist belief is before you decide whether we are right or wrong.

Yes, so this is the key differences between OSAS believers

For eg.. what I believe is eternal security.. but what happens with free will initially is very different.

1-- Total depravity- I agree with this.. but I don't believe the bible teaches that someone is depraved to the point of being unable to call for salvation of their own will. Of course convicted by the Holy Spirit first.. otherwise their is no prompting to receive eternal life. But not that this is 'irresistable'.


2--- Unconditional election-- I believe the predestination part of salvation is the fact that those who do call out for salvation are then pre-destined to enter heaven. The final destination is set for those who do exercise free will to call out.

The bible also teaches that pre-destination relates to the local church system God set up for believers to enter if they choose to. Pre-set as an institution. (Not buildings, but local bodies of believers)

3-- Limited Atonement-- I don't know anywhere in the bible that teaches that salvation is limited only to those who God has chosen in advance..bible teaches: 'whosoever shall call...' 'believe' example- thief on the cross who believed in Jesus.

Again pre-destination in the bible is either about a pre-set destination of heaven for those who believe.. or is about the system of local churches God has put in place as a pre-set institution. And this institution also has a pre-set destiny as seen in Revelation.

4-- Irresistable grace-- I don't know where this is in the bible. All the 'whosoevers' in the bible-- and Romans chapter 10


5-- Perseverance of the saints-- I don't know where this is in the bible. There is fruit from being saved of course- the result of the Holy Spirit indwelling someone at salvation.. but not that the person WILL do good works.. and won't fail into apostacy.

Bible examples of believers is that they do fall into carnality. Church of Corinth is an example.. David fell into adultery.. Paul talked about being carnal etc etc...

Not that any of these people would have lossed salvation at all.. but that it is possible for them to struggle and be ungodly. No guarantee of a life of good works.

The eternal security part of point 5 is biblical.. but not in the sense that it is only secure for those who are pre-set to do good works.

I'll bring in some scripture to show what I mean next post.

 

[phil36]

These discussions really all boil down to this


Free will = I Am.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

A way to look at it is this way.

God is soverign. God knows every aspect of every person he ever created.

God knows who will accept his grace, what it will take to accept his grace, and when they will accept his grace. thus he knows the right moment, right means and right set of circumstances to send to the person so they will be saved (thats why he will never fail, it is not up to us, it is his infinate wisdom)

He also knows who will never recieve his grace no matter what he does to try to convince them. Thus is not obligated to send them the word. nor would he send his own people in harms way for a people who will never recieve him anyway (which is why much of the world has never heard from another person of the gospel. yet as Paul says in romans 1. they still have no excuse, because God has shown it to them)

Gods sovereignty is not threatened by free will, nor will free will overrule, or subvert God's soverignty

 

[tribesman]

Yes, so this is the key differences between OSAS believers

For eg.. what I believe is eternal security.. but what happens with free will initially is very different.

1-- Total depravity- I agree with this.. but I don't believe the bible teaches that someone is depraved to the point of being unable to call for salvation of their own will. Of course convicted by the Holy Spirit first.. otherwise their is no prompting to receive eternal life. But not that this is 'irresistable'.


2--- Unconditional election-- I believe the predestination part of salvation is the fact that those who do call out for salvation are then pre-destined to enter heaven. The final destination is set for those who do exercise free will to call out.

The bible also teaches that pre-destination relates to the local church system God set up for believers to enter if they choose to. Pre-set as an institution. (Not buildings, but local bodies of believers)

3-- Limited Atonement-- I don't know anywhere in the bible that teaches that salvation is limited only to those who God has chosen in advance..bible teaches: 'whosoever shall call...' 'believe' example- thief on the cross who believed in Jesus.

Again pre-destination in the bible is either about a pre-set destination of heaven for those who believe.. or is about the system of local churches God has put in place as a pre-set institution. And this institution also has a pre-set destiny as seen in Revelation.

4-- Irresistable grace-- I don't know where this is in the bible. All the 'whosoevers' in the bible-- and Romans chapter 10


5-- Perseverance of the saints-- I don't know where this is in the bible. There is fruit from being saved of course- the result of the Holy Spirit indwelling someone at salvation.. but not that the person WILL do good works.. and won't fail into apostacy.

Bible examples of believers is that they do fall into carnality. Church of Corinth is an example.. David fell into adultery.. Paul talked about being carnal etc etc...

Not that any of these people would have lossed salvation at all.. but that it is possible for them to struggle and be ungodly. No guarantee of a life of good works.

The eternal security part of point 5 is biblical.. but not in the sense that it is only secure for those who are pre-set to do good works.

I'll bring in some scripture to show what I mean next post.

To the quoted in bold...yes, do bring in some scriptures that says that natural man has some free will to "call out" for salvation to exercise, if he so pleases...I think it's a hard on work on ya.