Do you believe in (OSAS) Once Saved, Always Saved?

  • 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.

AndrewMorgan

Active member
Jul 10, 2022
375
81
28
What do you think he meant by “missing Him?”
I'm getting mixed up with the format here, even being confused as to to whom I am replying. I'm a bit of a dinosaur when it comes to technology. I'll try.
Re. your first point: - "They didn't believe."?! You mean these guys went around preaching the gospel, healing people, etc. while not believing?!!
As for the nature of believing - I mean what it means to believe in a biblical context.
Re. Matt Dillahunty - All I perceive from him on the matter is that he believed in the truth of the gospel, earnestly repented and endeavo(u)red (don't know if you're American!) to serve Christ and aimed to "do his duty" as to 1 Peter 3:15 in giving a "good account" of the things of God.
I'm afraid I don't get what relevance Charles Templeton has to this issue. Did he subsequently lose his belief?
What do you think he meant by “missing Him?”

Good question! It seems if he were still a believer, he may be CLOSER to him than before. I don't know what relevance Templeton has to this discussion.
 

PennEd

Senior Member
Apr 22, 2013
12,937
8,662
113
Fifty years later, Lee Strobel had an opportunity to interview Templeton, who had just a couple of more years to live. He was in his 80s and suffering from Alzheimer’s, but still a clear conversation parter. In A Case for Faith, Strobel recounts the ending of their wide-ranging conversation.

“And how do you assess this Jesus?” It seemed like the next logical question—but I wasn’t ready for the response it would evoke.
Templeton’s body language softened. It was as if he suddenly felt relaxed and comfortable in talking about an old and dear friend. His voice, which at times had displayed such a sharp and insistent edge, now took on a melancholy and reflective tone. His guard seemingly down, he spoke in an unhurried pace, almost nostalgically, carefully choosing his words as he talked about Jesus.
“He was,” Templeton began, “the greatest human being who has ever lived. He was a moral genius. His ethical sense was unique. He was the intrinsically wisest person that I’ve ever encountered in my life or in my readings. His commitment was total and led to his own death, much to the detriment of the world. What could one say about him except that this was a form of greatness?”
I was taken aback. “You sound like you really care about him,” I said.
“Well, yes, he is the most important thing in my life,” came his reply. “I . . . I . . . I . . . ,” he stuttered, searching for the right word, ‘I know it may sound strange, but I have to say . . . I adore him!” . . .
” . . . Everything good I know, everything decent I know, everything pure I know, I learned from Jesus. Yes . . . yes. And tough! Just look at Jesus. He castigated people. He was angry. People don’t think of him that way, but they don’t read the Bible. He had a righteous anger. He cared for the oppressed and exploited. There’s no question that he had the highest moral standard, the least duplicity, the greatest compassion, of any human being in history. There have been many other wonderful people, but Jesus is Jesus….’
“Uh . . . but . . . no,’ he said slowly, ‘he’s the most . . .” He stopped, then started again. “In my view,” he declared, “he is the most important human being who has ever existed.”
That’s when Templeton uttered the words I never expected to hear from him. “And if I may put it this way,” he said as his voice began to crack, ‘I . . . miss . . . him!”
With that tears flooded his eyes. He turned his head and looked downward, raising his left hand to shield his face from me. His shoulders bobbed as he wept. . . .
Templeton fought to compose himself. I could tell it wasn’t like him to lose control in front of a stranger. He sighed deeply and wiped away a tear. After a few more awkward moments, he waved his hand dismissively. Finally, quietly but adamantly, he insisted: “Enough of that.”
Ok. I didn’t know anything about Charles Templeton.

But something stuck out in the interview you posted. So I did a little reading on this person, and it sure seems he was NOT a believer, and had never been born again.

In the interview he repeatedly talks about Jesus as a great human being, but at no time does he acknowledge that Jesus is God in the flesh. Not completely sure what his stance on Jesus taking his sin away through His sacrificial death, but acknowledging Jesus as God, is an essential component of the Gospel.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
55,877
26,041
113
I'm getting mixed up with the format here, even being confused as to to whom
I am replying. I'm a bit of a dinosaur when it comes to technology. I'll try.
As long as you use the Reply function to quote, and do not erase any of the coding, there
should not be a problem. There are one or two who do not use the system as it is meant
to be used, and that can get confusing. Also, anything quoted that has additional quotes
included in the original post? Those inserted quotes will not appear. Once a quoted post's
coding has been altered, it often carries on, post after post, quote after quote, for a while,
because people do not understand how HTML works, and/or make no effort to fix it, which
is quite simple really, as it is most often simply a matter of the actual quote tags not being
intact. [ quote] <= that is an opening quote tag. I included a space so it is visible.


The closing quote tag => [/ quote] That is probably the one that gets messed with the most.
People insert their cursor before the closing ] and the whole shebang is messed up.
 

AndrewMorgan

Active member
Jul 10, 2022
375
81
28
Yes, it is problem when formatting gets messed up.


Could you expand on this, please? I'm not sure what are referring to by "second point". Just restate it, or cite the post number and quote.


Please quote the verse where you "seem" to think that. I sure don't. In fact, here are relevant verses from the over-all context in John 6:

64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.
70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”
71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

In v.64 Jesus plainly says that some of the crowd do NOT believe. Then John expands on this by INCLUDING the betrayer in who did NOT believe.

Then, in v.70,71 John makes it crystal clear that Judas was the betrayer and Jesus described him as a devil. Sure doesn't sound like someone who believed. And this is WAY BEFORE the last supper.


Please cite post # and quote. I don't recall referring to "the cynical man".


Not really. Hypotheticals are usually scenarios that may not even be possible. So then, no answer would be realistic.


Since this thread is directed to believers, I have to assume that the word "believe" is understood biblically. So when I say "simply believe" I mean ONLY believe for salvation.


Is it "simplistic" to take plainly stated and straightforward verses any other way? I believe what is said.


Again, I need context in order to respond to this question.

Thanks.
 

AndrewMorgan

Active member
Jul 10, 2022
375
81
28
Ok. I didn’t know anything about Charles Templeton.

But something stuck out in the interview you posted. So I did a little reading on this person, and it sure seems he was NOT a believer, and had never been born again.

In the interview he repeatedly talks about Jesus as a great human being, but at no time does he acknowledge that Jesus is God in the flesh. Not completely sure what his stance on Jesus taking his sin away through His sacrificial death, but acknowledging Jesus as God, is an essential component of the Gospel.

One thing that was notably absent in the account was any mention by Templeton that He (Jesus) was the divine Saviour (British spelling).
 

Sipsey

Well-known member
Sep 27, 2018
1,357
652
113
What do you think he meant by “missing Him?”
Good question. I think his idea of Jesus is almost like that reply King Agrippa gave to Paul —Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

From what I can glean, Templeton became an evangelist while in his teens. Only later in life did he try and come to grips with some of the weightier matters. One can be emotionally and intellectually attached to an idea, without 100% conviction. Sincerity should never be the baseline, it is the object of ones belief/faith that validates it, or not.

One either believes Jesus was who He said He was, or not. There is no middle ground, and the parable about the seeds falling sort of sums it up.

Some issues are not clean cut enough for some, and they struggle with doubt.
 

AndrewMorgan

Active member
Jul 10, 2022
375
81
28
As long as you use the Reply function to quote, and do not erase any of the coding, there
should not be a problem. There are one or two who do not use the system as it is meant
to be used, and that can get confusing. Also, anything quoted that has additional quotes
included in the original post? Those inserted quotes will not appear. Once a quoted post's
coding has been altered, it often carries on, post after post, quote after quote, for a while,
because people do not understand how HTML works, and/or make no effort to fix it, which
is quite simple really, as it is most often simply a matter of the actual quote tags not being
intact. [ quote] <= that is an opening quote tag. I included a space so it is visible.


The closing quote tag => [/ quote] That is probably the one that gets messed with the most.
People insert their cursor before the closing ] and the whole shebang is messed up.

Thanks. I try to remember the correct way to operate, but I sometimes make mistakes.
 

AndrewMorgan

Active member
Jul 10, 2022
375
81
28
Yes, it is problem when formatting gets messed up.


Could you expand on this, please? I'm not sure what are referring to by "second point". Just restate it, or cite the post number and quote.


Please quote the verse where you "seem" to think that. I sure don't. In fact, here are relevant verses from the over-all context in John 6:

64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.
70 Then Jesus replied, “Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!”
71 (He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)

In v.64 Jesus plainly says that some of the crowd do NOT believe. Then John expands on this by INCLUDING the betrayer in who did NOT believe.

Then, in v.70,71 John makes it crystal clear that Judas was the betrayer and Jesus described him as a devil. Sure doesn't sound like someone who believed. And this is WAY BEFORE the last supper.


Please cite post # and quote. I don't recall referring to "the cynical man".


Not really. Hypotheticals are usually scenarios that may not even be possible. So then, no answer would be realistic.


Since this thread is directed to believers, I have to assume that the word "believe" is understood biblically. So when I say "simply believe" I mean ONLY believe for salvation.


Is it "simplistic" to take plainly stated and straightforward verses any other way? I believe what is said.


Again, I need context in order to respond to this question.

Thanks.

As for explaining what I've previously said, I'm afraid I often get mixed up with the format here - I'm not au fait with technology. I not even sure to whom I have said what
It may be helpful to refer to my posts to try to glean from them.
 

PennEd

Senior Member
Apr 22, 2013
12,937
8,662
113
Good question. I think his idea of Jesus is almost like that reply King Agrippa gave to Paul —Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

From what I can glean, Templeton became an evangelist while in his teens. Only later in life did he try and come to grips with some of the weightier matters. One can be emotionally and intellectually attached to an idea, without 100% conviction. Sincerity should never be the baseline, it is the object of ones belief/faith that validates it, or not.

One either believes Jesus was who He said He was, or not. There is no middle ground, and the parable about the seeds falling sort of sums it up.

Some issues are not clean cut enough for some, and they struggle with doubt.
His whole account reminds me of

1 John 2:19

New King James Version

19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
Fifty years later, Lee Strobel had an opportunity to interview Templeton, who had just a couple of more years to live. He was in his 80s and suffering from Alzheimer’s, but still a clear conversation parter. In A Case for Faith, Strobel recounts the ending of their wide-ranging conversation.

“And how do you assess this Jesus?” It seemed like the next logical question—but I wasn’t ready for the response it would evoke.
Templeton’s body language softened. It was as if he suddenly felt relaxed and comfortable in talking about an old and dear friend. His voice, which at times had displayed such a sharp and insistent edge, now took on a melancholy and reflective tone. His guard seemingly down, he spoke in an unhurried pace, almost nostalgically, carefully choosing his words as he talked about Jesus.
“He was,” Templeton began, “the greatest human being who has ever lived. He was a moral genius. His ethical sense was unique. He was the intrinsically wisest person that I’ve ever encountered in my life or in my readings. His commitment was total and led to his own death, much to the detriment of the world. What could one say about him except that this was a form of greatness?”
I was taken aback. “You sound like you really care about him,” I said.
“Well, yes, he is the most important thing in my life,” came his reply. “I . . . I . . . I . . . ,” he stuttered, searching for the right word, ‘I know it may sound strange, but I have to say . . . I adore him!” . . .
” . . . Everything good I know, everything decent I know, everything pure I know, I learned from Jesus. Yes . . . yes. And tough! Just look at Jesus. He castigated people. He was angry. People don’t think of him that way, but they don’t read the Bible. He had a righteous anger. He cared for the oppressed and exploited. There’s no question that he had the highest moral standard, the least duplicity, the greatest compassion, of any human being in history. There have been many other wonderful people, but Jesus is Jesus….’
“Uh . . . but . . . no,’ he said slowly, ‘he’s the most . . .” He stopped, then started again. “In my view,” he declared, “he is the most important human being who has ever existed.”
That’s when Templeton uttered the words I never expected to hear from him. “And if I may put it this way,” he said as his voice began to crack, ‘I . . . miss . . . him!”
With that tears flooded his eyes. He turned his head and looked downward, raising his left hand to shield his face from me. His shoulders bobbed as he wept. . . .
Templeton fought to compose himself. I could tell it wasn’t like him to lose control in front of a stranger. He sighed deeply and wiped away a tear. After a few more awkward moments, he waved his hand dismissively. Finally, quietly but adamantly, he insisted: “Enough of that.”
I have Strobel's book, one of the best ever on apologetics! Regarding Templeton's comments, it really doesn't make clear whether he ever repented of his atheism. Any honest unbeliever could recognize Jesus' "highest moral standard, greatest compassion, etc".

And the end of the conversation suggests he hadn't. Moral people can love Jesus in a humanly moral sense, but that isn't a repentance from his atheism.

We won't know until eternity.
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
I'm getting mixed up with the format here, even being confused as to to whom I am replying. I'm a bit of a dinosaur when it comes to technology. I'll try.
One thing you should do is click on the "reply" button at the right bottom of the post. That puts you in a reply mode with the poster's comments available to respond to. And it shows to whom you are responding to.

Re. your first point: - "They didn't believe."?! You mean these guys went around preaching the gospel, healing people, etc. while not believing?!!
No, the text doesn't say they "preached the gospel". Jesus only mentioned their works.

As for the nature of believing - I mean what it means to believe in a biblical context.
Re. Matt Dillahunty - All I perceive from him on the matter is that he believed in the truth of the gospel, earnestly repented and endeavo(u)red (don't know if you're American!) to serve Christ and aimed to "do his duty" as to 1 Peter 3:15 in giving a "good account" of the things of God.
In the Greek, the word for "save" has NO context for commitment, as in the way it is used today. To be committed to a cause, requires work on the part of the committed one. That's not the case in saving faith.

In saving faith, the believer entrusts his soul to the work of Jesus on their behalf for salvation. iow, it's not trusting what you do (commitment, etc) that saves. It is trusting what Jesus did FOR YOU that saves.

I'm afraid I don't get what relevance Charles Templeton has to this issue. Did he subsequently lose his belief?
Yes, that was my point. But given his ministry beforehand, clearly he was saved.
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
As for explaining what I've previously said, I'm afraid I often get mixed up with the format here - I'm not au fait with technology. I not even sure to whom I have said what
It may be helpful to refer to my posts to try to glean from them.
I've been responding to them the best I can. :)
 

AndrewMorgan

Active member
Jul 10, 2022
375
81
28
That's evident from what I've seen.[/QUOTE

Re. The guys who came to Jesus, saying we've done various things in Your name - What evidence is there that they didn't preach the gospel? I find it hard to believe that they didn't believe in the sense I've been mentioning. It seems that, in THIS verse, Christ was pointing out it was necessary to do the works as well as believe the right things.
 
Jan 31, 2021
8,658
1,064
113
AndrewMorgan said:

Re. The guys who came to Jesus, saying we've done various things in Your name - What evidence is there that they didn't preach the gospel? I find it hard to believe that they didn't believe in the sense I've been mentioning. It seems that, in THIS verse, Christ was pointing out it was necessary to do the works as well as believe the right things.
Let's look at the text:

Matt 7:21-23
21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’
23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

v.21 teaches that not all who address Jesus as Lord will enter the kingdom
v.22 "that day" refers to the judgment day of all the unsaved, which is the GWT judgment of Rev 20:11-15
v.22 they (1) prophesied in Jesus' name, (2) drove out demons in Jesus' name, and (3) performed many miracles in Jesus' name.
No mention of preaching the gospel. No mention of trusting in the work of Jesus for entering the kingdom.

Their ONLY appeal was in what THEY did for HIM. Nothing about what HE did for THEM.
v.23 Jesus tells them, "I never knew you". This clearly shows that they NEVER believed. How could Jesus say He "never" knew a believer.
 
Jun 20, 2022
6,460
1,331
113
Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may abound? 2 May it never be! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
 
Jun 20, 2022
6,460
1,331
113
i would bet that (but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.) does not include thinking some people were created for hell so don't waste time being a witness to them.
 
Jul 16, 2022
389
104
28
57
North Carolina
So let's discuss the doctrine/issue of so-called Conditional Security vs Eternal Security. Do you believe in Once Saved, Always Saved? I believe Salvation is a Combination of the Grace of Justification+the Grace of Perseverance i.e. Salvation=Justification+Perseverance. So, after Justification, we must pray for perseverance, otherwise we risk being cut off or falling away, as the Bible records that some have done. By God's Grace, we can persevere to the end.

The famous saying of Our Lord is: "But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved." (Mat 24:13)

Three or four passages to start off the discussion below:

1. John 15: "2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit ... 6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned."

Seems to be echoed in Romans 11:22: "22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off."

2. Heb 6:4-6:
"4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."

3. 2 Pet 2:20-22:

"20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.

21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

22 But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."

These verses very clearly seem to teach that Justification!=(not equal to)Salvation. Initial Justification+Final Perseverance = Full Salvation. Thoughts?

God Bless,
Xavier.

Yes and no. Once we die and we have been redeemed, nothing can remove us from Christ's perfect love nd grace. Until then, we have free will. Our name can be blotted out, we can look back from the plow. I've seen many return to a life of sin far worse than the one they claimed they were saved from, leaving utter destruction in their wake. Their death was ppure suffering and fearful. Ungodly sights only they coud see and we were helpless to give aid. Most thought it was their medicatin but I thought otherwise.