Eternal Security/OSAS is Bad Doctrine

If you sin and then ask for forgiveness, why do you ask?
OSAS should mean you no longer need to ask for forgiveness when you sin!!

If you sin and then ask for forgiveness, why do you ask?
OSAS should mean you no longer need to ask for forgiveness when you sin!!

Newsflash: You don't.





What exactly did the blood of Christ do and how are sins dealt with? Also, what role does the High Priest serve? These are questions that once you find the answer to you come to realize the total forgiveness of sin that you have through the shed blood of Christ, and His role as our High Priest/Mediator.

You'll find out that the forgiveness of sin (or rather, remission of sin) happens through bloodshed (His sacrifice) and Jesus as our High Priest intercedes on our behalf forever, being a mediator between man and God. He is the propitiation for our sins, the appeasement. You'll also find out that Jesus doesn't do daily sacrifices to deal with daily sin like the priests of old, but having an eternal priesthood did one sacrifice for sin for all time.

Consider how the sins of new converts are dealt with. Through the blood of Christ, the shedding of His blood. His eternally sufficient sacrifice for sin. Now think, if sin is dealt with through bloodshed, how is your sin dealt with? Your answer is found in Christ, and His role as our High Priest.

Read the book of Hebrews to find all of this out, and more.

benny boy

Deuteronomy 33:12 And of Benjamin he said, Benjamin is the loved one of the Lord, he will be kept safe at all times; he will be covered by the Most High, resting between his arms. <-- can bring a smile to your face

and, would you be interested in the thread that I made ...


the-death-of-self-righteousness
https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...th-of-self-righteousness.180470/#post-3752123

Should it? (nope)
Eternal security is not a license to sin.

The term "OSAS" is derogatory. And therefore an offensive label.
The slanderous label was created by those who claim salvation is by works.

Those who believe in eternal security do not go by that label.
They believe that God, and only God, can nullify salvation on the grounds of apostacy.
This is in God's hands. There is NOTHING we can do to undo what ONLY God can do.

The "OSAS" hysteria is just that.
A divisive false accusation against your brothers and sisters in Christ.
Are you sure you want any part of that?

That's good. Thanks for standing up for the atonement against those who trust in works of the flesh for salvation.

It seems that rlm68 went down the line posting the same comments to anyone who would dare claim that Jesus paid it all.
The equivalent of telemarketing on the forum.

You say "these people"?
That's a very divisive and prejudicial comment. (us and them)

That's a cheap shot.
Are you claiming that the "true" gospel is salvation through self-effort? (works)

I agree with what you are saying.
But what do you mean by "genuinely believe"? How is that measured?
Not a criticism at this point. Could you unpack that for us? Thanks.

Nope. Not even close.

You obviously don't know me very well and have somehow made that incorrect conclusion on both accounts.

No it doesn't mean you don't have to ask for forgiveness.

It means God won't toss you out of His family but will lovingly show you a better way when you repent.

I don't know you at all.
Are you, or are you not, claiming that the "true" gospel is salvation through self-effort? (works)
What is the "true" gospel you are writing about?

That was a cheap shot though. I know that much.

Do you even know what the conversation and comment was about?

Reread the thread. If you can't figure it out I will lay it out in the next post.

NOWHERE does it specifically say that the person who "trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant" was "saved." The reference to "the blood of the covenant that sanctified him" in verse 29 "on the surface" appears to be referring to a genuine believer, but this overlooks the fact that the word translated "sanctified" (which is the verb form of the adjective "holy") which means "set apart," and doesn't always refer to a saved person.

*In 1 Corinthians 7:14, Paul uses it to specifically refer to non-Christians who are "sanctified" or "set apart" by their believing spouse. (And by this Paul does not mean that they are saved). A non-Christian can be "set apart" from other non-Christians without experiencing salvation as Paul explained. So the word "sanctified" means to be "set apart." If the word "sanctified" simply meant "saved," then you would have to say that the Sabbath was saved (Genesis 2:3), the tabernacle was saved (Exodus 29:43), the Lord was saved (Leviticus 10:3), the Father saved the Son (John 10:36) and many other things that do not line up with scripture.

In verse 39, the writer of Hebrews sets up the CONTRAST that makes it clear to me that he was referring to unbelievers, not saved people: But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul. Those who draw back to perdition do not believe to the saving of the soul and those who believe to the saving of the soul do not draw back to perdition.

So after considering the context, it seems most likely that "he was sanctified" should be understood in the sense of someone who had been "set apart" or identified as an active participant in the Hebrew community of believers, but who has committed apostasy by renouncing his identification with Hebrew believers, by rejecting the "knowledge of the truth" that he had received, and trampling under foot the work and the person of Christ himself. This gives evidence that his identification with the Hebrew community of believers was only superficial and that he was not a genuine believer.

In Hebrews 10:26, To "sin willfully" in the Greek carries the idea of deliberate intention that is habitual, which stems from rejecting Christ deliberately. This is CONTINUOUS ACTION - A MATTER OF PRACTICE. Now we don't walk along our daily life and "accidentally" fall into a pit called sin. We exercise our will but, the use of the participle clearly shows a CONTINUOUS ACTION. The unrighteous practice sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Galatians 5:19-21); not the righteous, who are born of God (1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 John 3:9).

In the parable of the Sower of the Seed, who is the Sower? What is the seed?

I believe the Sower is God and His workers and the seed is the gospel.

The first seed is stolen by Satan, these are our aethist and people of religions who reject the gospel.

The gospel is

1. The need of humans: We are sinners in need of a savior. Nothing we do past, present or future can save us or get us into heaven.
2. The solution to our sin: Only what Jesus did upon the cross can cleanse us of sins
3. If we have saving faith in the above God will send His Holy spirit to seal us and lead us in this life.
4. We are more than mere humans, we are born again children of God lead by the holy Spirit as ambassadors to this lost world in a mission for our Heavenly Father.

The second seed have the faith of demons. They know Jesus is the Holy one but have hearts of stones. They are our wolves and false prophets within the church.

The third type are secular nominal Christians who attend church because of the social or economic benefits to network, socialize but don't have a true relationship with God. They just want to have an easier life now without saving faith.

Only the forth soil are true believer and only they have eternal security.

Jesus doesn't say the path is half and half. He says the path to destruction is wide (3 out of 4 leads to hell) and narrow is the path to salvation.

Anyway going to help the church give some hurricane Florence victims a place to call home.

Hope you all have a blessed day.

No

The mark of the beast irreversible.

If you take the mark of the beast you will be going to hell 100%.
No way out.

I dont buy your idea that it just means you are an unbeliever. Thats ridicilous. This is why im so against spiritualizing scripture, you can come up with stuff like this.

Why would you "stop believing"?

You cant just "not believe" something you believe in?
If I told you that Canada is a continent, would you believe it? Of course not, since you already know its not true.

Likewise, when you are saved, WHY Would you STOP believing in Jesus?
This is such a strange question to me.

Good question and you can't just "not believe" something you believe in, unless your belief was never firmly rooted and established from the start. Shallow, temporary belief that has no root, produces no fruit and withers away does not represent saving belief. I could NEVER imagine myself to stop believing in Jesus. My faith is too engrained in me and I'm too convinced. To stop believing in Jesus is unfathomable to me.

Yet another cheap shot. Inferring that I am stupid.

Don't bother.
My original comment stands.

Wrong.......do not conflate SONSHIP with FELLOWSHIP.......<----ONE is an irrevocable gift based upon grace/faith......the other is subject to walking in the light as he is in the light......

My son is a son by BIRTH....NOTHING will ever be able to change that fact, however, SOMETIMES my KID fires me up by not doing what I tell him to do...that temporarily breaks our fellowship, but he remains my SON BY BIRTH...

You guys conflate so many issues into a religious quagmire soup of error.....