Once saved always saved (OSAS) debunked

Let's take the example I just gave. I sat under a pastor for several yrs. I moved away and his wife got in touch with me through FB. She told me he had cheated on her, left her. He has since remarried the woman he cheated with. I was in this pastors home often. I sat under his ministry. Now I'm assuming you would say he was never truly saved in the first place. I would say he's in a back slidden state. The question is, if the Lord came back today, where would this man be? I'd be curious to know your answer.

Sorry but you did not answer my question. Using scripture tell me how God accomplishes this?

How does he undue the personal sealing, redemption, justification and sanctification of the person?

And what is the cut off, how much sin or what type of sin for Him so make this move?

Well that is why I used a real world example. I genuinely would like to know your take on it. Then we will both understand where we are coming from.

Who requires works for righteousness people or God?

God asks to repent of our dead works and accept the work of Christ, that is the one condition required of us, we have spoken of this before.

Is serving God a dead work?

14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!

Ok, so are you saying once you repent, no matter what sin you commit it's covered? Or am I misunderstanding where you are coming from?

Sorry but real world examples are absolutely of no value.

What we are given is scripture and its truth is the only source.

If you do not know scripture well enough to formulate a response and make a case for you view fair enough, then just say so.

But then, if you have no foundation for your opinion, in which case it is less the an opinion since opinions should be based on facts, it is nothing but a misguided position based on nothing.

Not for the spiritually, eternally saved.

Do you know what metanoia/repentance means as understood by the writers of the new testament and God?

Next verse.

15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

According to Hebrews 9, Christ is the mediator of a new covenant. He died to set them free from the sins committed under the old covenant. (As a side note, Christ is also applicable to non-old covenant Gentiles as well, just in case that needs saying for anyone who reads this.)

So the reason Christ died is to set us free from sin so we can serve God. The "dead works" or "acts that lead to death" are sin. It's basically saying don't sin anymore because you're free from the wages of sin. Now you can confidently approach God and do the good things we're supposed to.

Christ died for many reasons, indeed one is the salvation of the soul ( mind, emotions, will), to have a relationship again in real time with God here on earth, to be able to enter into god's presence after death.

In scripture it is important to know which salvation/saved is in view otherwise one acquires a huge mess of a doctrine filled with inconsistencies including that eternal life can be forfeited.

Again which type of death is in view here, it is the death of the soul, the real time effects of sin on a person in this life.

It is about character.

What you are railing against is your being asked to show proof of your claim.

Yes, people can read. And you now making false accusations against me when the onus is on you to prove your claim makes your character look bad.

Every Christian here knows no actual pastor would say what you attributed, claimed, he said.
When asked to post proof of that you said we have to go find it. You gave a name and location where this pastors remarks could be found. But you refused and still refuse to post a direct link to that supposed, and he is supposedly a pastor when you've implicated him in saying something no ordained pastor would, pastors comments that you've claimed he said here.


The burden of proof fallacy is in your court.

When I ask for proof and don't accept your claim without it, that is not calling you a liar!
It's asking you to go to a little effort to prove what you implicated someone for having said.
You refuse.

Now you're claiming I called you a liar. When anyone reading will not find any place in my posts wherein I said that.

You protest too much. The time it took you to do that would have been better spent linking proof to that supposed pastors remarks.

You make claims people say things but have no intention of proving it.
That pastor, and now me. Only my posts are here and show I never called you a liar.

Asking for proof isn't calling you a liar.

The moderators are worthy of their position here and are smart enough to know that.

This is the last I'll address this absurd argument you're making.

Prove it!
If you still refuse your claim is not worthy of being considered credible.

Exactly.

Regardless, don't do them.

A question of reflection:

If Adam and Eve died when they disobeyed God and we had need to be born again then wouldn't it be possible for us to die yet again?

Quote " You invented that statement and attributed it to a phantom pastor. Just to denegrate the doctrine of eternal salvation."

You said I made up a statement. That is calling a person a liar. Apologize and we can move on.

Better to just forgive and move on.

We've come to the right place to practice forgiving people who neither desire it nor ask for it. This is the training grounds we need to sharpen our forgiveness skills. This Sabbath, that's one way I am keeping it holy.