Once Saved Always Saved?

[zone]

OSAS is nothing more than a Calvinistic lie from Satan.

hi zilla
what does ephesians say?
have been or might be?

what's calvin got to do with this?

i thought it was Jesus Who is the Gate.
zone.

 

[cronjecj]

Jesus is the gate and we are saved through Christ by faith from now and forever.

Zone.................................

in Christ

 

[zone]

I like it bro Very Good word!

The indwelling Holy Spirit is the very embodiment of the imputed righteousness of Christ.

hi crossfire.
really?
the imputed Righteousness of Christ is a declaration of aquittal by God based on the finished Work of Jesus under The Law (also including His obedience unto death).

your post suggests the Holy Spirit imparts or infuses the believer with Christ's Righteousness....do i misunderstand you?

surely that's not what you mean. that would make the believer equal in actual Righteousness to Jesus.
zone.

 

[Crossfire]

hi crossfire.
really?
the imputed Righteousness of Christ is a declaration of aquittal by God based on the finished Work of Jesus under The Law (also including His obedience unto death).

your post suggests the Holy Spirit imparts or infuses the believer with Christ's Righteousness....do i misunderstand you?

surely that's not what you mean. that would make the believer equal in actual Righteousness to Jesus.
zone.

Zone,

I'm not here looking for controversey, an arguement or to create a public spectacle. I'm not here to prove someone else wrong or to prove myself right. I'm not here in an attempt to exalt myself or to run over anyone else. Our Father in heaven wouldn't approve.

If you would like to discuss my perspective further then I invite you to read some of my most recent comments and send me your thoughts in a private message. If not then it's fine by me. However, the last thing I desire is to turn this conversation into a two way ego trip or slam fest. That's the last thing these forums need and the last thing Jesus would do.

Anyways may God's grace be with you, in you, and work through you.

 

[zone]

Zone,

I'm not here looking for controversey, an arguement or to create a public spectacle. I'm not here to prove someone else wrong or to prove myself right. I'm not here in an attempt to exalt myself or to run over anyone else. Our Father in heaven wouldn't approve.

If you would like to discuss my perspective further then I invite you to read some of my most recent comments and send me your thoughts in a private message. If not then it's fine by me. However, the last thing I desire is to turn this conversation into a two way ego trip or slam fest. That's the last thing these forums need and the last thing Jesus would do.

Anyways may God's grace be with you, in you, and work through you.

controversy? it may very well arise simply because most everyone holds to a different set of doctrines.

but i'm not out to slam you.

i have indeed read your posts.

no worry. i'm not out to slam you or anyone else.
i did see you admitted the Lord dealt with you concerning things of the past.
so that's good enough for me.

is it possible to dialogue?
is it okay to ask questions? i'm not really interested in private conversations though.
just forum.

zone.

 

[AnandaHya]

Matthew 13:5 (KJV)
Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth.

Peace.

me loves the cute baby!!!

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGPS8sa-bRQ[/video]

 

[Zilla64007]

hi zilla
what does ephesians say?
have been or might be?

what's calvin got to do with this?

i thought it was Jesus Who is the Gate.
zone.

Jesus is the gate. Calvin is the one who developed OSAS.
it was Augustine who created the beginnings of not only OSAS, but Calvinism as well.

Perseverance of the Saints IS OSAS.

your precious reformed theologians get all of their theology from Greek philosophy, or Gnosticism

 

[zone]

Jesus is the gate. Calvin is the one who developed OSAS.
it was Augustine who created the beginnings of not only OSAS, but Calvinism as well.

Perseverance of the Saints IS OSAS.

your precious reformed theologians get all of their theology from Greek philosophy, or Gnosticism

lol zilla.

John 10:9
I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture.

Jesus' words are enough for me. will be saved (not might be)...will come in and go out (not maybe), and find pasture...well...He says it. i trust Him. i believe Him. and He has made it so for me.

theologians or philospohers or gnostics can't stop the reality and promises of the Good Shepherd Who plans to, and is fully able to save His sheep...every last one.

Perseverance of the Saints IS OSAS?

do you believe in OSAS or not? words we make up are funny. and sad i reckon.

why not trust Him?
take care.
zone.

 

[Zilla64007]

no i do not believe in OSAS, or Once Saved Always Saved, or Perseverance of The Saints
I'm not a Calvinist... i will never be a Calvinist.
I'm a Classical Arminian, like James Arminius, the Remonstrants, Simon Episcopius, John Wesley, and Roger Olson

i believe in total depravity, or total inability (we cannot save ourselves with good works), but that depravity does not include our free will
i believe in conditional election, where God elects people based on their faith, or belief
I believe in unlimited atonement (not universal salvation), where Christ died for all (1 John 2:2), and will be saved, but ONLY IF they repent and turn to Christ
i believe that the grace of God is resistible. one example acts 7:51
i believe that salvation is conditional with our faith in Christ and our continual abiding in Him

with saying all that...
I believe that man has NO spark of divinity of ANY KIND. Man cannot ever save Himself
I believe that man does NOT turn to God first... man cannot seek out God without God's grace.
I believe that it is God who draws man to Himself at the very beginning... it starts with God, and it ends with God

 

[zone]

I'm not a Calvinist... i will never be a Calvinist.
I'm a Classical Arminian, like James Arminius, the Remonstrants, Simon Episcopius, John Wesley, and Roger Olson

i believe in total depravity, or total inability (we cannot save ourselves with good works), but that depravity does not include our free will
i believe in conditional election, where God elects people based on their faith, or belief
I believe in unlimited atonement (not universal salvation), where Christ died for all (1 John 2:2), and will be saved, but ONLY IF they repent and turn to Christ
i believe that the grace of God is resistible. one example acts 7:51
i believe that salvation is conditional with our faith in Christ and our continual abiding in Him

with saying all that...
I believe that man has NO spark of divinity of ANY KIND. Man cannot ever save Himself
I believe that man does NOT turn to God first... man cannot seek out God without God's grace.
I believe that it is God who draws man to Himself at the very beginning... it starts with God, and it ends with God

zilla.
you are trying to hold two soteriological beliefs at once.
if you are for the first part, you can't be for the second part.
impossible.

zone.
i'm a Lutheran, not a Calvinist.

 

[iamsoandso]

ok,,,,,,,,,,,,,i tried to invoke some into searching for s510,,,,,,,i did work for ricetec,,and as to the food supply,,,,,,,"the christian body,,,dont see whats coming",,,,,,,,in the end the proficies of mass starvation will be its outcome,,,,,,,,,,,,,,so i guess im beating my head against a wall to get anyone to stop and research anything ive posted,,,,,,,,,,i tried to say it in other rooms "christian point of view" and then "from the other point of view,,,,,here" if i read on others post i will usually minamise the chat window and open another search window and "search" and then post.
but here i found that i had already done this footwork,,,and i hope it helps,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,since the beginning of www ive either searched "chirstian,info" or "geneoligy" now im glad i did this ,,,ive always liked history, archeoligy ect. and the more i did geneooligy i took note of imfo that would pertain to "christian religion",,,,,,,,you wouldnt think they fit hand in hand but they do.
in the beggining lets say "first five books" moses ect. the priest on the saboath read aloud and few people could read or wright, "scribes",,,,,by the time of the kings you will remember david and others finding the books in the temple and reading them....so "books,bible" was not somthing all men had
in the times of the apostles in acts its said the tessalonians were studdied in the scriptures,,, the eunic was sitting in the chariot reading from isiah,and jesus himself told the apostles 'take neither script nor stalve",,,,,,,,,so they in that day did have coppies of the scriptures and could read them.
but after that point for example the essaines took great leaungth to seal off several caves at the dead sea "quamran manuscripts" but for the most part after about a.d. 70 most people didnt have the bible they would be killed for it. espessily the new testiment epistles,,,,i.e.christianity
now a while later rome became christian, but for the most part the "bible" was only in the posession of the vatican,,,,copies were sent to the priest and they were coppied, and then sent to other churches but not all had all 73 books we find in the chatholic bible,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,this continued through the dark ages,,,,,,,,, their was a "test" that was given to those accused of crimes ect. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,"psalms 51",,,,,,,,,if you could read it you were then taken to the cleargy,,,,,,,,,,,,,,it could mean being put to death or not,,,,,,,,,,,,,becouse it meant you could read and write.....and so you werent trusted to be among the commeners,,,, some "memorised" psalms 51 to pass this test and so they gave them psalms 52 to read to see if they would recite "51"'
when the wars were fought between the countries in europe gov.s came into possion of "books",,,,,,,,when the printing press was invented,1500's then they began to print what we call the "bibles",,,,,,,,,problem was very few people could read,,,,,,,,in the early 1600's the kjv was printed,the mayflower brought the first settelers to the americas and in suranami/guyanna the first jewish synagog was built but was quickly abandoned and they moved it to new york ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,so their was church of england, catholic and judism as primary religions but also lds sprang up,,,,,,and the protistant religions from europe also but not untill 1776 when we had freedom of religion did most of the others spred out.,,,,,,,,,,,,,that is in north america/u.s.
which brings me to my point,,,,,,,,,,,,,,they flooded the "newengland colinies" whith people who could read and write,,,,,,,,,,80% or so but check the other twelve colinies their litteracy rate is 10% or so,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,so why am i saying this???????? look up a census record frm 1850 from s.c. or georgia,,,,,,,,,,,,1790 to 1840 didnt ask if they could read or write so youll have to look for the federal records to find lit. rates but after 1850 it ask can you read? can you write? last grade? ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,so take 1850 cherokee co. ga. about 4000 people lived there in 1850 but only 15% could read,,,,,,,,,,,these youll notice are the judges, clerks, teachers,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and "preachers" ect. are the only ones who could read,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,but dont stop there,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,look up the "preachers",,,,,,,,,,,look at there writing on their deeds,wills ect.,,,,,youll find some sighned ,,,,,,,,,his"x"name,,,,,,,,,,,,,meaning he couldnt read or write,,,,,,,a lot could though,,,,,,,,,,,,now but most read at 3rd to 8th grade,,,,,youll find this untill about 1880 or so and then becouse of new school standards in the u.s. it jumps way up.
so,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,from about 1880 till 2011,,,,,,,,,,,,or about 130 years "we are the only groups of people who picked apart the reading of the bible",,,,,,,,,,,you see 90% of the people before us couldnt read the bible even if they had it.............and thats a proven fact from records from the days of christ till now,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,so our ability to be saved by the cross,,,,,,,,cannot be tangled up with how clever we can disect the bible ,that is we began to look at it with a magnifing glass about 130 years ago and we evolved into men who sit in front of computors looking at very microscopic things.but thats just "the new fad" like i said.
now im looking at all the uderlined red words i misspelled,"lol",,,,while im talking about "illitracy","lol" and im not going to use spellcheck so ill look smart.,,,"saved" means that we were so dumb we couldnt figure it out,,,,it means he needed to give us "grace",,,,,but you know we cant goof up figuring out "grace",,,,its like we didnt deserve it but he loved us so much he just gave it to us. i know that i was so dumb, and lost that if he'd not "saved" me i wouldnt made it,,,,,,,,,,,,but then if i could have figured it out and done it on mine own then christ would not have been mine "saviour" ,,,,,,,,"i would have been mine own",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,so thank you christ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[zone]

i believe in total depravity, or total inability (we cannot save ourselves with good works), but that depravity does not include our free will

in this case, then, in our total depravity perhaps the only thing we accomplish with our free will is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?

 

[Zilla64007]

zilla.
you are trying to hold two soteriological beliefs at once.
if you are for the first part, you can't be for the second part.
impossible.

zone.
i'm a Lutheran, not a Calvinist.

Classical, or 17th Century, Arminianism held to those exact beliefs.
Classical Arminianism is NEITHER Pelagianism OR Semi-Pelagianism.

Even James Arminius himself stressed that it started with God and ended with God...
and to quote Martin Luther...

13. If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.

for someone who lived a Christian life, he certainly preached the opposite of what Paul preached in Romans 6:1-2
1 What should we say then? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may multiply?
2 Absolutely not! How can we who died to sin still live in it?

 

[Zilla64007]

in this case, then, in our total depravity perhaps the only thing we accomplish with our free will is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?

can a sinner do a good work?

the answer would be yes.
an atheist can go out and volunteer for the homeless, but he's not doing it for God... he's doing it for himself

 

[zone]

Classical, or 17th Century, Arminianism held to those exact beliefs.
Classical Arminianism is NEITHER Pelagianism OR Semi-Pelagianism.

Even James Arminius himself stressed that it started with God and ended with God...
and to quote Martin Luther...

13. If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.

for someone who lived a Christian life, he certainly preached the opposite of what Paul preached in Romans 6:1-2
1 What should we say then? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may multiply?
2 Absolutely not! How can we who died to sin still live in it?

really zilla:
perhaps you'd like to take a look at the actual letter? you'll find the MYTH (propagated as usual by synergists) at the BOTTOM.
you'll also see he was utterly opposed to antinomianism.
but i suppose those who hate Justification By Grace through faith will keep lying about it.

please do try to be more careful with slanderous disinfo.
thank you.
zone.

Did Luther really say, "Sin boldly!"



From Holy Trinity Lutheran Church, New Rochelle, NY:

Yes, but one cannot understand what he was saying at all without the rest of the sentence "...but believe more bolder still." To see what he was speaking about we need to look at the letter from which these bold words are lifted. He wrote in the translation we have here, "God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world." He wrote this to his colleague Philipp Melachthon from his hiding place, the Wartburg Castle, in 1521.

Read the whole context in:

A Letter From Luther to Melanchthon
Letter no. 99, 1 August 1521, From the Wartburg
(Segment)
Translated by
Erika Bullmann Flores
from: _Dr. Martin Luther's Saemmtliche Schriften_
Dr, Johannes Georg Walch, Ed.
(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, N.D.),
Vol. 15,cols. 2585-2590.



Of course, you can only know and absolve those sins which have been
confessed to you; sins which have not been confessed to you, you
neither need to know nor can you absolve them. That is reaching too
high, dear gentlemen."

You cannot convince me that the same is true for the vows made by
priests and monks. For I am very concerned about the fact that the
order of priesthood was instituted by God as a free one. Not so that
of the monks who chose their position voluntarily, even though I have
almost come to the conclusion that those who have entered into that
state at an age prior to their manhood, or are currently at that
stage, may secede with a clear conscience. I am hesitant, however,
with a judgment about those who have been in this state for a long
time and have grown old in it.

2. By the way, St. Paul very freely speaks about the priests (1.Tim:
4, ff), that devils have forbidden them to marry; and St. Paul's
voice is the voice of the divine majesty. Therefore, I do not doubt
that they must depend on him to such a degree that even though they
agreed to this interdiction of the devil at the time, now--having
realized with whom they made their contract--they can cheerfully
break this contract.

3. This interdiction by the devil, which is clearly shown by God's
Word, urges and compels me to sanction the actions of the Bishop of
Kemberg. For God does not lie nor deceive when He says that this is
an interdiction from the devil. If a contract has been made with the
devil it must not endure since it was made in godless error against
God and was damned and repudiated by God. For He says very clearly
(1. Tim. 4:1 Vulg.) that those spirits are in error who are the
originators of the interdictions.

4. Why do you hesitate to join this divine judgment against the gates
of hell? That is not how it was with the oath of the children of
Israel which they gave to the Gibeons. They had it in their laws
that they must offer peace or accept peace offered to them, and
accept into their midst proselytes and those who adhered to their
customs. All this took place. Nothing happened there against the
Lord or by the advice of spirits. For even though in the beginning
they murmured, later on they approved.

5. In addition, consider that the state of being unmarried is only a
human statute and can be readily lifted. Therefore any Christian can
do this. I would make this statement even if the interdiction had
not come from a devil, but from a devout person. However, because
there is no such statement by God concerning the monks, I am
therefore not certain that I should make the same pronouncement
concerning them. For I would not dare to presume, neither advice
another to do so. Would God that we could do this, though, in order
to prevent someone from becoming a monk, or leaving his order during
the years of his virility. For we are to avoid vexations if there is
no relevant scriptural passage available to us, even when dealing
with things which are permitted.

6. Good old Carlstadt is also citing St. Paul (1 Tim.5:9-11), to let
go of the younger widows and select 60-year-olds, wish to God this
could be demonstrated. Quite easily someone might say that the
Apostle referred to the future, while in reference to the past (V.12)
they are condemned because they have broken their first troth.
Therefore this expression has come to naught and cannot be a
dependable basis for the conscience. For that is what we are
searching for. Moreover, this reasoning that it is better to be
married than to burn with vain desire (1 Cor.7:9), or to prevent the
sins of immorality (1 Cor.7:2), by entering into marriage while
committing the sin of the broken troth, that is nothing but common-
sense. We want the scripture and the witness of God's will. Who
knows if the one who is very enthusiastic today will still be so
tomorrow?

7. I would not have allowed marriage for priests for the sole reason
of "burning" had not St. Paul called this interdiction devilish and
hypocritical, condemned by God. Even without the burning he urged
that this unmarried status be cast aside simply for the fear of God.
However, it is necessary to discuss these things more thoroughly. For
I too would love to come to the aid of the monks and nuns. I very
much pity these wretched human beings, these young men and girls who
suffer defilement and burning.

8. Concerning the two elements of the Holy Supper I will not give an
example, but give testimony with Christ's words. Carlstadt does not
show that those who have received only one element have sinned, or
not sinned. I am concerned that Christ did not command either one of
the two, just as He does not command baptism if the tyrant or the
world withhold the water. So also the violence of persecution
separates men and women, which God forbids to separate, neither do
they agree to be separated. Therefore, neither do godfearing hearts
agree that they should be robbed of one of the elements. However,
those who do agree and approve: who can deny that these are not
Christians but Papists who are sinning.

9. There HE does not demand it, and here the tyrant oppresses, I
therefore cannot agree that those who receive only one element are
sinning. For who can exert power to take something when the tyrant
is not willing? Therefore it is only common-sense which observes
here that Christ's institution is not adhered to. Scripture makes no
definition by which we could declare this act a sin. It is Christ's
institution, given in freedom, which cannot be incarcerated as a
whole or in part.

10. It happened to Donatus, the martyr, where several people could
not participate because the cup broke or the wine was spilled. What
if this happens and there is no other wine available? There are other
similar situations. In short, because Scripture does not speak of sin
here, I therefore say there is no sin involved.

11. I am quite pleased, though, that you are re-establishing Christ's
method. For it was just that which I planned to take up with you
first of all upon my return to you. For now we recognize this
tyranny and can oppose it, in order not to be forced to receive only
one of the elements.

12. From here on I will no longer conduct private mass. Rather we
should pray God to give us more of His Spirit. For I am expecting
that the Lord will soon ravish Germany--which she deserves because of
her unbelief, godlessness and hate of the Gospel. However, we shall
be blamed for this chastisement, as we are made out to be heretics
who have provoked God to this action. We shall be scorned by the
people and disdained by the nation. Those, however, will make
excuses for their sins, through which He will manifest that the hard-
hearted do not become godly neither by mercy nor wrath. Let it
happen, let the will of the Lord be done. Amen!

13. If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but
the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the
true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only
imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let
your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the
victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we
are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We,
however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new
heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that
through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the
sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to
kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think
such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager
sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.

On the day of the Feast of St. Peter the Apostle, 1521

DCNY: Did Luther really say, "Sin boldly!"

 

[tribesman]

James Arminius himself stressed that it started with God and ended with God...

With the aid and approval and co-operation of man. This is called synergism.

Luther was a monergist.

In effect synergism means salvation conditioned on the works of the sinner, while monergism means salvation conditioned on the work of Christ alone.

 

[zone]

With the aid and approval and co-operation of man. This is called synergism.

Luther was a monergist.

In effect synergism means salvation conditioned on the works of the sinner, while monergism means that salvation is conditioned on the work of Christ alone.

hello again tribesman.
AMEN
again.

zone

~

Sola Scriptura - Scripture Alone
Solus Christus - Christ Alone
Sola Gratia - Grace Alone
Sola Fide - Faith Alone
Soli Deo Gloria - The Glory of God Alone


Unwarranted confidence in human ability is a product of fallen human nature ... God's grace in Christ is not merely necessary but is the sole efficient cause of salvation. We confess that human beings are born spiritually dead and are incapable even of cooperating with regenerating grace. We reaffirm that in salvation we are rescued from God's wrath by his grace alone. It is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ by releasing us from our bondage to sin and raising us from spiritual death to spiritual life. We deny that salvation is in any sense a human work. Human methods, techniques or strategies by themselves cannot accomplish this transformation. Faith is not produced by our unregenerated human nature. - Cambridge Declaration

 

[notIbutChrist]

Jesus is the gate. Calvin is the one who developed OSAS.
it was Augustine who created the beginnings of not only OSAS, but Calvinism as well.

Perseverance of the Saints IS OSAS.

your precious reformed theologians get all of their theology from Greek philosophy, or Gnosticism

Sad but true Zilla, it is truly demonic

 

[tribesman]

hello again tribesman.

Hiya zone,

Gospel truth is always attacked by enthusiasts, pharisees and arminians.

5SOLAS

 

[Zilla64007]

With the aid and approval and co-operation of man. This is called synergism.

Luther was a monergist.

In effect synergism means salvation conditioned on the works of the sinner, while monergism means salvation conditioned on the work of Christ alone.

actually, from an Arminian perspective, it is only Synergistic in saying that man has a small role in his salvation, but not to the point where he works for his salvation... no classical Arminian has ever stated that Arminianism is a gospel of works...

that is Calvinist propaganda