OSAS origins and comparison

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
No. Remember I posted (to you) previously that in Gen 41:31, Num 27:18 and Isa 63:18, how the Holy Spirt was already residing within people during the OT era

You have not proved this.

which was why there were saints then - just as there would be saints of the NT.

Your definition of a saint is a believer, I'm presuming? Let me know if it's not.

Yes, they can believe in the OT, but your logic is backwards.

Me: The Bible says that one must be indwelt to have the life. Even Roger says this and quoted Romans 8:9-11. These in John 6:38-39 believe before they were indwelt, before they had the life, therefore they didn't have the life yet. But they believed.

Roger: They were believers, therefore they had the life in them, and had the Holy Spirit in them, because my system requires it to be interpreted that way.

Your position, Roger, is all based on speculation, not the Bible.

OT believers proves that the life is not needed to believe. The life is the result of believing.

This precedent proves that before Pentecost, the Holy Spirit resided within certain people. Receiving the Holy Spirit is different than of Him taking up residence within (indwelling) someone. Your verse is saying that the Holy Spirit would bring forth from them "rivers of living waters". What was meant by that is not that they would begin to be indwelt, but that by the Holy Spirit they would begin to preach the true gospel - that living waters would flow from them -living water is symbolic of the gospel. Because they (of the verse) had already believed (present tense) that with the receiving of the Holy Spirit living waters "shall (future tense) flow from them". For it to be stated in that manner - and because true faith and belief only come from God (with which you agreed)- it meant they had already become saved and indwelt by/with the Holy Spirit.

The precedent is believers believing in the OT without the life in them. "Rivers of living water" means born again. Living water means the life in them from the indwelling Spirit. It says so right in the verse.

I'm brushing the dust from my feet in this thread. I'm tired of chasing.

Dave
 
Are we going to continue this song and dance? Ok, I'll play.

-----------------
Genesis 41:38, This is Pharaoh recognizing that the Spirit of God is working through Joseph. It's Pharaohs perspective recorded, and he could not know if the Spirit of God was in Joseph or upon him. He only recognized that what happened through Joseph was from God, not Joseph. It's called a 'narrative description' rather than a source for strict systematic doctrine.
-----------------
Numbers 27:18 There is no "the" before the word "spirit" in the original languages of this passage, only "spirit". KJV translators added "the" it to make the English smoother, and was never added to make the claim the the Spirit was within him. It literally reads "a man in whom is spirit". The lack of the definite article has most credible theologians agreeing that that passage is speaking of a quality, or attitude of spirit. however, in numbers 11:17, this is how the Hebrew language works when they want to specify the Divine source, they use a definite article. Speaking to Moses.....Numbers 11:17 " Then I will come down and talk with you there. I will take of the Spirit that is upon you and will put the same upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with you, that you may not bear it yourself alone."
------------------
Isaiah 63:11 KJV reflects back to that same Numbers 11:17. Remember, "upon you", and "upon them" from Numbers 11:17? Same people. The literal translation options for Isaiah 63:11 are "in the midst," "the inner part," or "among them". When applied to the camp of Israel, a collective group (which is what "within him" from Isaiah 63:11 is speaking of), it's always translated "in the midst", or "among them". Remember, the singular suffix ("his") in Isaiah 63:11 refers to the corporate body of Israel.
-------------------

Your turn.

Would you explain John 7:38-39 please? Give me context and your interpretation of what it means and how it lines up with what you believe. Like I did. If they were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit and did not yet have the life (Romans 8:9-11), how did God allow them to believe? There must be another Biblical option, right?

You can address these also, since I gave you three. It's only fair, right? ;) Galatians 3:2-3, and Ephesians 1:13-14.

Dave


Dave, you are going to absolutely desperate lengths to protect your timelines. You are now forcing yourself to argue that God’s inspired record in Genesis is just a faulty pagan perspective, that Joshua didn't have the Holy Spirit but just had a "good attitude," and that the singular pronoun "him" means "among the crowd." Trying to use grammar tricks like those to erase the Holy Spirit out of the Old Testament saints completely fails.

First, God inspired Moses to write Genesis 41:38. God does not put factual errors into His inspired text to establish narrative. If the text says the Spirit of God was in Joseph, He was in Joseph. To say otherwise, is to change Scripture. Second, your argument about the missing definite article in Numbers 27:18 completely falls short. In John 3:5, there is no definite article before Spirit in the original language either. By your logic, being born of the Spirit just means having a good attitude. Third, God knows the difference between singular and plural pronouns. Isaiah 63:11 explicitly says God put His Holy Spirit within "him"—singular, referring to Moses, not "them" the crowd.

As for your broken record on John 7:38-39, Galatians 3, and Ephesians 1, those verses describe the global, corporate outpouring of the New Covenant administration at Pentecost, not a total absence of saving life before the cross. I already explained this multiple times to you in prior posts. If your timeline says the Holy Spirit was not given for internal spiritual life before the cross, you are calling God a liar when He says the Spirit was inside Joseph, Joshua, and Moses to belong to Him under Romans 8:9.

As I said to you both before, you are manufacturing dual systems that divide the work of the Holy Spirit. If the legal way of giving spiritual life changed based upon a calendar, you need a second savior to back up that second system. The operation of the Holy Spirit is directly linked to, and supportive of, one specific Savior. The Savior, His salvation, and the Holy Spirit's operation comprise one cohesive, integrated unit. His mode of operation could only change if the Savior to which He was linked also changed, yet we see in Scripture nothing of that kind. Jesus alone is referred to as THE SAVIOR, meaning a singular Savior, not one of several saviors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DavidLamb
You have not proved this.

Actually, I did prove it, See my prior post

Your definition of a saint is a believer, I'm presuming? Let me know if it's not.

Yes, they can believe in the OT, but your logic is backwards.

Me: The Bible says that one must be indwelt to have the life. Even Roger says this and quoted Romans 8:9-11. These in John 6:38-39 believe before they were indwelt, before they had the life, therefore they didn't have the life yet. But they believed.

Roger: They were believers, therefore they had the life in them, and had the Holy Spirit in them, because my system requires it to be interpreted that way.

Your position, Roger, is all based on speculation, not the Bible.

OT believers proves that the life is not needed to believe. The life is the result of believing.

No, my definition of a saint is someone who has been saved. My logic is not, nor can it be backwards. A spiritually dead person cannot believe until being given spiritual life, and that comes only from/with salvation, not before whether in OT or NT, so salvation happens first. My position is exclusively based upon the Bible as the verses I included so demonstrate. Your problem is that since you don't correctly comprehend its doctrines, you are unable to recognize its message.

The precedent is believers believing in the OT without the life in them. "Rivers of living water" means born again. Living water means the life in them from the indwelling Spirit. It says so right in the verse.

No, it doesn't. Rivers of living water means the gospel coming out of them as a result of becoming born again. In John 7:38-39, the rivers of living water represent the abundant, outflow of the Holy Spirit's power and ministry from a born-again saint in order to edify the elect and to bring judgement to the others. It means sharing the Gospel as a direct result of being born again. However, of itself, it does NOT mean BECOMING or BEING born again. What do you think the "out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water" means? When Jesus speaks about salvation and regeneration within an individual, He uses the picture of a single, internal well. Look at John 4:14:
[Jhn 4:14 KJV] 14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
In John 7, however, Jesus changes from a localized "well" inside a person to "rivers" flowing "out of his belly." - John 7:38. Spiritual rivers don't stay in one place; they move outward for watering. Once a person is born again and filled with the Spirit, they don't just keep the gospel and salvation to themselves. The Spirit causes the gospel to come out from within them, which results in their preaching of it, the exercising spiritual gifts, and the teaching of Christ to others (Acts 1:8, Acts 2:4).

I'm brushing the dust from my feet in this thread. I'm tired of chasing.
Okay, bye
 
  • Like
Reactions: DavidLamb
Dave, you are going to absolutely desperate lengths to protect your timelines. You are now forcing yourself to argue that God’s inspired record in Genesis is just a faulty pagan perspective, that Joshua didn't have the Holy Spirit but just had a "good attitude," and that the singular pronoun "him" means "among the crowd." Trying to use grammar tricks like those to erase the Holy Spirit out of the Old Testament saints completely fails.

Joshua had the Holy Spirit upon him, but not in him. The all or nothing argument with regards to the Holy Spirit is your framework which you have not yet proven. Please do not apply that unproven framework to my position and act as if it's an flaw from my thinking. The all or nothing argument applies to the life that the indwelling brings, and does not limit that way that the Holy Spirit can interact, and even teach those who God wants to, without indwelling, and without the life in them, by convicting them of sin, revealing spiritual truth, and drawing them towards Jesus Christ (John 16:8), or just flat out working with unbelievers (Ezra 1:1, Isaiah 45:1, Jeremiah 25:9)

It's your system that is flawed, not the Bible.

First, God inspired Moses to write Genesis 41:38. God does not put factual errors into His inspired text to establish narrative. If the text says the Spirit of God was in Joseph, He was in Joseph. To say otherwise, is to change Scripture.

God does not put errors into His Word, but Ex Catholics do when they translated the KJV. And many translations afterword's, not seeing that error, have unfortunately followed suit. And false teachers always cling to those bad interpretations.

Second, your argument about the missing definite article in Numbers 27:18 completely falls short. In John 3:5, there is no definite article before Spirit in the original language either. By your logic, being born of the Spirit just means having a good attitude. Third, God knows the difference between singular and plural pronouns. Isaiah 63:11 explicitly says God put His Holy Spirit within "him"—singular, referring to Moses, not "them" the crowd.

The absence of the definite article carries different weight in Hebrews as it does in Greek. In John 3:5, nouns following prepositions (ex / "out of") frequently drop the article while remaining definite.

As for your broken record on John 7:38-39, Galatians 3, and Ephesians 1, those verses describe the global, corporate outpouring of the New Covenant administration at Pentecost, not a total absence of saving life before the cross. I already explained this multiple times to you in prior posts. If your timeline says the Holy Spirit was not given for internal spiritual life before the cross, you are calling God a liar when He says the Spirit was inside Joseph, Joshua, and Moses to belong to Him under Romans 8:9.

Please answer the one simple question that I've been begging you to answer, but you continue with the song and dance. :rolleyes:

John 7:38-39, Galatians 3:2-3, and Ephesians 1:13-14 How did they believe? Remember, with the Holy Spirit indwelling, we have the life, without the Holy Spirit indwelling we do not have the life.

As I said to you both before, you are manufacturing dual systems that divide the work of the Holy Spirit. If the legal way of giving spiritual life changed based upon a calendar, you need a second savior to back up that second system. The operation of the Holy Spirit is directly linked to, and supportive of, one specific Savior. The Savior, His salvation, and the Holy Spirit's operation comprise one cohesive, integrated unit. His mode of operation could only change if the Savior to which He was linked also changed, yet we see in Scripture nothing of that kind. Jesus alone is referred to as THE SAVIOR, meaning a singular Savior, not one of several saviors.

Jesus and you disagree. Here's just a couple more added to the ones I've already given you. The Gospel of John is loaded with these.

John 16:7, John 12:32, John 12:23-24, John 3:14-15, John 15:26, John 14:26, Jeremiah 31:34.

The Promises made in the Old Covenant, and the Promises received in the NC, are not a duel system, as you call it. But the promises made are defined by the dispensation of the Old Testament, and received in the dispensation of the New Testament. The book of Acts records this transition, which you deny. Hebrews contrasts the two dispensations, the Covenant promises made and the Covenant promises received. To deny this is to deny half the Bible. But you've already doing that by defending TULIP.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2ndTimeIsTheCharm
No, my definition of a saint is someone who has been saved. My logic is not, nor can it be backwards. A spiritually dead person cannot believe until being given spiritual life, and that comes only from/with salvation, not before whether in OT or NT, so salvation happens first. My position is exclusively based upon the Bible as the verses I included so demonstrate. Your problem is that since you don't correctly comprehend its doctrines, you are unable to recognize its message.
Yawn!

John 7:38-39 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Ephesians 1:13-14 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

Galatians 3:2-3 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

No, it doesn't. Rivers of living water means the gospel coming out of them as a result of becoming born again. In John 7:38-39, the rivers of living water represent the abundant, outflow of the Holy Spirit's power and ministry from a born-again saint in order to edify the elect and to bring judgement to the others. It means sharing the Gospel as a direct result of being born again. However, of itself, it does NOT mean BECOMING or BEING born again. What do you think the "out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water" means? When Jesus speaks about salvation and regeneration within an individual, He uses the picture of a single, internal well. Look at John 4:14:
[Jhn 4:14 KJV] 14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
In John 7, however, Jesus changes from a localized "well" inside a person to "rivers" flowing "out of his belly." - John 7:38. Spiritual rivers don't stay in one place; they move outward for watering. Once a person is born again and filled with the Spirit, they don't just keep the gospel and salvation to themselves. The Spirit causes the gospel to come out from within them, which results in their preaching of it, the exercising spiritual gifts, and the teaching of Christ to others (Acts 1:8, Acts 2:4).

Watch this, this is cool.

OT (before the D.R.A), not yet realized....

NEV--John 1:12-13 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

NT, realized.....

Galatians 4:6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!"

John 7:38-39 said the same thing. (See above)

Context is very revealing. See Galatians 4, what does it say?

1 Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all,
2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father.
3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world.
4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.
6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!"
7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

So cool!
 
God does not put errors into His Word, but Ex Catholics do when they translated the KJV. And many translations afterword's, not seeing that error, have unfortunately followed suit. And false teachers always cling to those bad interpretations.
The translators of the KJV were not former Catholics, but members of the Church of England.
 
The translators of the KJV were not former Catholics, but members of the Church of England.
just tell him his statement makes a theological claim, but it also makes a historical claim about a protected religious group (“Ex‑Catholics”) that isn’t accurate and isn’t needed to make his point. The KJV translators were not “Ex‑Catholics”; they were Anglican scholars commissioned under King James in 1604, trained in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, and working within the Reformation context. Whatever errors you believe exist in the KJV—or in later translations—must be demonstrated exegetically, not by attributing them to a religious group.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DavidLamb
just tell him his statement makes a theological claim, but it also makes a historical claim about a protected religious group (“Ex‑Catholics”) that isn’t accurate and isn’t needed to make his point. The KJV translators were not “Ex‑Catholics”; they were Anglican scholars commissioned under King James in 1604, trained in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, and working within the Reformation context. Whatever errors you believe exist in the KJV—or in later translations—must be demonstrated exegetically, not by attributing them to a religious group.

Well, the Church of England was Roman Catholic before Henry VIII excommunicated the Anglicans because he wanted a divorce.
OSAS originated with Augustine of Hippo circa 400 AD, and Calvin was too ignorant, lazy, careless or something to realize it contradicted many Scriptures, including:

Matt. 10:22, “All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.”
Rom. 11:22, “Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.”
1Cor. 15:2, “By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.”
Gal. 5:4, “You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”
Col. 1:22-23, “But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel.”
2Thes. 1:4-5, “Therefore, among God’s churches we boast about your perseverance and faith in all the persecutions and trials you are enduring. All this is evidence that God’s judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering.”
2Tim. 2:12, “If we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us;”
Heb. 3:6&14, “But Christ is faithful as a son over God’s house. And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast… We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first.”
Heb. 6:4-6, “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.” This passage indicates that apostasy may be viewed as total depravity or blasphemy against the HS (MT 12:31).
Heb. 10:26-36, “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God… So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised.”
Jam. 1:12, “Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.”
2Pet. 1:10-11, “Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”
2Pet. 2:20, “If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.”
1John 2:24-25, “See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he promised us—even eternal life.”
Jude 21, “Keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.”
Rev. 2:10, “Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life.”
 
Well, the Church of England was Roman Catholic before Henry VIII excommunicated the Anglicans because he wanted a divorce.
OSAS originated with Augustine of Hippo circa 400 AD, and Calvin was too ignorant, lazy, careless or something to realize it contradicted many Scriptures, including:

Matt. 10:22, “All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.”
Rom. 11:22, “Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.”
1Cor. 15:2, “By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.”
Gal. 5:4, “You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”
Col. 1:22-23, “But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation—if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel.”
2Thes. 1:4-5, “Therefore, among God’s churches we boast about your perseverance and faith in all the persecutions and trials you are enduring. All this is evidence that God’s judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering.”
2Tim. 2:12, “If we endure, we will also reign with him. If we disown him, he will also disown us;”
Heb. 3:6&14, “But Christ is faithful as a son over God’s house. And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast… We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first.”
Heb. 6:4-6, “It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.” This passage indicates that apostasy may be viewed as total depravity or blasphemy against the HS (MT 12:31).
Heb. 10:26-36, “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God… So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised.”
Jam. 1:12, “Blessed is the man who perseveres under trial, because when he has stood the test, he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.”
2Pet. 1:10-11, “Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”
2Pet. 2:20, “If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning.”
1John 2:24-25, “See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he promised us—even eternal life.”
Jude 21, “Keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.”
Rev. 2:10, “Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you, and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life.”
There was no such thing as "The Church of England" before Henry VIII's time. And the point surely is that Dave123 had claimed that the KJV had been translated by "ex-Catholics", and whatever the national church had been before Henry VIII, the translators as individuals had never been Roman Catholics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rogerg
Well, the Church of England was Roman Catholic before Henry VIII excommunicated the Anglicans because he wanted a divorce.
OSAS originated with Augustine of Hippo circa 400 AD, and Calvin was too ignorant, lazy, careless or something to realize it contradicted many Scriptures,
That is not accurate and does not help your argument: the fact that England was once under Roman Catholic jurisdiction does not mean the KJV translators were “Ex‑Catholics,” nor does it make the Church of England in 1604 a Roman Catholic body; by the time of the KJV, Anglicanism had its own clergy, doctrine, and identity for decades, and the translators were academically trained Reformation scholars, not former Roman Catholics.
Likewise, your claim that OSAS “originated with Augustine” is historically incorrect and theologically irrelevant; eternal security is grounded in Jesus’ own promises (“My sheep will never perish,” John 10:28), not in Augustine’s writings.
And attributing Calvin’s doctrine to ignorance or laziness is not an argument — it is an assertion; if you believe his conclusions contradict Scripture, that must be demonstrated exegetically, not by assigning motives or deficiencies.
In short, neither the history of Anglicanism nor accusations about theologians advance your point; doctrine must stand or fall on the text itself, not on assumptions about religious groups or personalities.
 
There was no such thing as "The Church of England" before Henry VIII's time. And the point surely is that Dave123 had claimed that the KJV had been translated by "ex-Catholics", and whatever the national church had been before Henry VIII, the translators as individuals had never been Roman Catholics.

Yes, just as we individuals were never RC, but our ancestors probably were before the Reformation.
 
Yes, just as we individuals were never RC, but our ancestors probably were before the Reformation.
Saying “our ancestors probably were RC before the Reformation” is irrelevant to the claim you were correcting, because ancestral religious affiliation does not define the personal background of the translators, nor does it establish doctrinal bias in the translation
 
  • Like
Reactions: DavidLamb
That is not accurate and does not help your argument: the fact that England was once under Roman Catholic jurisdiction does not mean the KJV translators were “Ex‑Catholics,” nor does it make the Church of England in 1604 a Roman Catholic body; by the time of the KJV, Anglicanism had its own clergy, doctrine, and identity for decades, and the translators were academically trained Reformation scholars, not former Roman Catholics.
Likewise, your claim that OSAS “originated with Augustine” is historically incorrect and theologically irrelevant; eternal security is grounded in Jesus’ own promises (“My sheep will never perish,” John 10:28), not in Augustine’s writings.
And attributing Calvin’s doctrine to ignorance or laziness is not an argument — it is an assertion; if you believe his conclusions contradict Scripture, that must be demonstrated exegetically, not by assigning motives or deficiencies.
In short, neither the history of Anglicanism nor accusations about theologians advance your point; doctrine must stand or fall on the text itself, not on assumptions about religious groups or personalities.

Re the relationship between RC and the CofE, please see what I just posted to DL.

Re OSAS, you compare apples and oranges rather than harmonize John 10:28 with the verses I cited.
I explain why my assertion that tulip is false is true in the thread "Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture" as follows:

P – John 10:27-29 states that Jesus gives his sheep eternal life, and no one can snatch them, which is stated by Paul in Romans 8:35-39 as being separated from the love of God in Christ. However, there are numerous Scriptures indicating that a believer may not persevere (including John 8:31, Matt. 10:22& Heb. 10:36), so although God gives endurance per Rom. 15:4-5, it too must be received through continued faith (2Cor. 5:7) “from first to last” (Rom. 1:17).
 
Re the relationship between RC and the CofE, please see what I just posted to DL.

Re OSAS, you compare apples and oranges rather than harmonize John 10:28 with the verses I cited.
I explain why my assertion that tulip is false is true in the thread "Resolving Problematic Interpretations of Scripture" as follows:

P – John 10:27-29 states that Jesus gives his sheep eternal life, and no one can snatch them, which is stated by Paul in Romans 8:35-39 as being separated from the love of God in Christ. However, there are numerous Scriptures indicating that a believer may not persevere (including John 8:31, Matt. 10:22& Heb. 10:36), so although God gives endurance per Rom. 15:4-5, it too must be received through continued faith (2Cor. 5:7) “from first to last” (Rom. 1:17).
Your reply is trying to “harmonize,” but you’re actually overriding texts with a prior conclusion instead of letting them speak in sequence.
John 10:27–29 and Romans 8:35–39 do not describe a conditional security that depends on our sustained performance; they describe a God‑secured salvation grounded in Christ’s grip and the Father’s decree.
When Jesus says, “My sheep hear My voice… I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish,” the logic is: those who are truly His sheep will keep hearing and following because He keeps them, not because they independently maintain faith.
The passages you cite about perseverance (John 8:31; Matt 10:22; Heb 10:36) are not counter‑examples but marks of the real thing—they show that enduring faith is the evidence of genuine salvation, not a separate human condition that can cancel God’s promise.
Romans 1:17 and 2 Corinthians 5:7 describe the mode of Christian life (“by faith from first to last”), not a fragile status that can be lost if faith dips below a threshold.
In short, you’re treating perseverance texts as if they negate security texts, when biblically they function together:
those whom God saves, He keeps—and He keeps them by causing them to persevere.
 
Saying “our ancestors probably were RC before the Reformation” is irrelevant to the claim you were correcting, because ancestral religious affiliation does not define the personal background of the translators, nor does it establish doctrinal bias in the translation
In 1517, Machiavelli wrote Il Principe, and Martin Luther protested the sale of indulgences by nailing 95 theses on a church door, beginning the Protestant Reformation in Germany. In 1520, Thomas Muntzer went beyond Luther’s reforms and began the Anabaptist movement when he rejected infant baptism, and he was beheaded after leading a peasant’s revolt in 1525, trying to establish a communistic theocracy. In 1528, Balthasar Hubmaier was burned at the stake in Vienna for preaching adult baptism, so his wife drowned herself in the Danube River.

In Zurich, Ulrich Zwingli followed Luther’s lead, including rejection of Anabaptists, but he was killed in a battle with Swiss Catholic cantons in 1531. In that year, Henry VIII became head of the Church of England so he could divorce Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn. Henry had Thomas More and William Tyndale murdered for opposing him, and Anne Boleyn for not bearing him children. In 1535, John Calvin fled France to Switzerland, where he began his lifelong work on Institutes of the Christian Religion, which rejected infant baptism but adopted a deterministic view of Augustine’s doctrine of predestination. His followers in France were called the Huguenots.

From 1545-63, the Council of Trent met in 25 sessions under three popes to counter Protestant reforms. It affirmed the deutero-canonical books, church tradition, seven sacraments, purgatory, celibacy, Jerome’s Vulgate and papal authority. Nostradamus began making his astrological predictions in 1547. Calvin approved of the execution of Michael Servetus for “heresy” in 1553. John Knox led a presbyterian reform movement that established the Church of Scotland in 1560.

In 1610, followers of Jacob Arminius (called Remonstrants) published a document objecting to Calvin’s deterministic doctrine of predestination. The King James Bible was produced in 1611.

Frankly, I do not see much difference between RC persecutions headed by the Pope and Anglicanism due to the beheadings of Henry.
Two sides of the same coin IMO.
 
In 1517, Machiavelli wrote Il Principe, and Martin Luther protested the sale of indulgences by nailing 95 theses on a church door, beginning the Protestant Reformation in Germany. In 1520, Thomas Muntzer went beyond Luther’s reforms and began the Anabaptist movement when he rejected infant baptism, and he was beheaded after leading a peasant’s revolt in 1525, trying to establish a communistic theocracy. In 1528, Balthasar Hubmaier was burned at the stake in Vienna for preaching adult baptism, so his wife drowned herself in the Danube River.

In Zurich, Ulrich Zwingli followed Luther’s lead, including rejection of Anabaptists, but he was killed in a battle with Swiss Catholic cantons in 1531. In that year, Henry VIII became head of the Church of England so he could divorce Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn. Henry had Thomas More and William Tyndale murdered for opposing him, and Anne Boleyn for not bearing him children. In 1535, John Calvin fled France to Switzerland, where he began his lifelong work on Institutes of the Christian Religion, which rejected infant baptism but adopted a deterministic view of Augustine’s doctrine of predestination. His followers in France were called the Huguenots.

From 1545-63, the Council of Trent met in 25 sessions under three popes to counter Protestant reforms. It affirmed the deutero-canonical books, church tradition, seven sacraments, purgatory, celibacy, Jerome’s Vulgate and papal authority. Nostradamus began making his astrological predictions in 1547. Calvin approved of the execution of Michael Servetus for “heresy” in 1553. John Knox led a presbyterian reform movement that established the Church of Scotland in 1560.

In 1610, followers of Jacob Arminius (called Remonstrants) published a document objecting to Calvin’s deterministic doctrine of predestination. The King James Bible was produced in 1611.

Frankly, I do not see much difference between RC persecutions headed by the Pope and Anglicanism due to the beheadings of Henry.
Two sides of the same coin IMO.
Your long historical survey does not actually address the point you were correcting, because listing Reformation‑era violence, corruption, or political maneuvering does not establish that the KJV translators were “ex‑Catholics,” nor does it justify treating Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism as “two sides of the same coin”; the issue is not whether Henry VIII behaved wickedly (he did), nor whether both institutions committed persecutions (they did), but whether the individual translators of the KJV were former Roman Catholics, which they were not.
Your argument confuses political history with personal religious background, and then uses that confusion to imply doctrinal bias in translation—an implication that cannot be sustained.
If you want to critique Anglican doctrine or Calvin’s theology, you must do so exegetically, not by collapsing all 16th‑century religious institutions into one moral category or by attributing theological error to a protected religious group.
The only legitimate ground for evaluating doctrine or translation is the text itself, not the sins of monarchs or the tragedies of the Reformation era.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DavidLamb
Your reply is trying to “harmonize,” but you’re actually overriding texts with a prior conclusion instead of letting them speak in sequence.
John 10:27–29 and Romans 8:35–39 do not describe a conditional security that depends on our sustained performance; they describe a God‑secured salvation grounded in Christ’s grip and the Father’s decree.
When Jesus says, “My sheep hear My voice… I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish,” the logic is: those who are truly His sheep will keep hearing and following because He keeps them, not because they independently maintain faith.
The passages you cite about perseverance (John 8:31; Matt 10:22; Heb 10:36) are not counter‑examples but marks of the real thing—they show that enduring faith is the evidence of genuine salvation, not a separate human condition that can cancel God’s promise.
Romans 1:17 and 2 Corinthians 5:7 describe the mode of Christian life (“by faith from first to last”), not a fragile status that can be lost if faith dips below a threshold.
In short, you’re treating perseverance texts as if they negate security texts, when biblically they function together:
those whom God saves, He keeps—and He keeps them by causing them to persevere.

You say potato, I say tomato.
Both are edible vegetables.

But I perceive/discern you zigging off the rails again by modifying persevering MFW/IF with "independently" and "separate"
that seem to nullify human cooperation. Also by using the term (accidentally) "lost" instead of (intentionally) "repudiated".
 
You say potato, I say tomato.
Both are edible vegetables.

But I perceive/discern you zigging off the rails again by modifying persevering MFW/IF with "independently" and "separate"
that seem to nullify human cooperation. Also by using the term (accidentally) "lost" instead of (intentionally) "repudiated".
Your “potato/tomato” analogy is not actually addressing the issue, because the disagreement is not about terminology but about categories: you are treating perseverance as a humanly sustained condition that determines whether salvation continues, while Scripture treats perseverance as the God‑produced evidence that salvation is real. When I say “independently” and “separate,” I am not nullifying human cooperation; I am rejecting the idea that human cooperation is the decisive cause of perseverance
 
  • Like
Reactions: DavidLamb