O.S.A.S.

[psimmond]

robbyyoung said: ...and when seemingly contradictions are apparent, sovereignty should silence the confusion as FAITH pulls us to a stronger reliance upon YAHWEH.

What does this mean? I assume you are referring to God's sovereignty, right? How does God's sovereignty silence the confusion? (I recognize God's sovereignty but certain passages of scripture still confuse me...)

[Biblegate]

Always saved, or not always saved? That is the question.

Here's a thorough Biblical examination of that question. It challenges OSAS as well the Calvinist view of the perseverance of the Saints.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-_NkadM ... xDyNq_fMfZ

Comments?

[dwilkins]

Doug,
nice job of pointing out the differences.

I would only point out that Perseverance doesn't depend on limited atonement. You can be a 4-pointer who accepts unlimited atonement and still believe that only those who were chosen before the foundation of the world will persevere.

I'd argue that this is one thing that makes the four point view incoherent. If the atonement is limited then a limited number of people had their sins paid for. No matter what the people themselves want, only some of them get in (though a compatibilist might say that God makes them want it that way). In any case, their perseverance is might be relevant as an element of foreknowledge, but their sins are either paid for or not. If it's unlimited then an unlimited number of people had their sins paid for. That results in universalism, regardless of how people act. The DTS/Liberty view is an anomaly because it basically contends for limited atonement, though the individual can choose whether or not to commit the fatal sin.

A four pointer who opts for universal atonement may say that only some might persevere, but it's irrelevant whether they do or not because unlimited atonement results in universalism.

Doug

[robbyyoung]

robbyyoung said: ...and when seemingly contradictions are apparent, sovereignty should silence the confusion as FAITH pulls us to a stronger reliance upon YAHWEH.

What does this mean? I assume you are referring to God's sovereignty, right? How does God's sovereignty silence the confusion? (I recognize God's sovereignty but certain passages of scripture still confuse me...)

Thanks for the proofread. My words got jumbled up as my brain was moving faster than my fingers. What I was thinking and meant to say was, "...and when seemingly contradictions are apparent, our confusion should yield to His sovereignty as FAITH pulls us to a stronger reliance upon YAHWEH."

God Bless!

[psimmond]

No Doug,
Unlimited atonement doesn't necessarily result in universalism. Four-point Calvinists who reject limited atonement say If Christ paid for the sins of all people on the cross but the Holy Spirit only draws/regenerates a subset of the whole, it will only be that subset (the elect) who are reconciled to God.

So why would Christ pay for the sins of all rather than just the sins of the elect? Well, if you're a four-point Calvinists who believes this way, you just say, "The Bible says it, so I believe it. It's a mystery."

[Singalphile]

OSAS and perseverance are not the same doctrine. They are very different and come from completely different foundations.

I know they're different, but at the heart of both views is the idea that once a person is truly born again and a part of the body of Christ, he or she will never lose that status and position. That seems to me to be what it boils down to for most people, though they may disagree on who isn't really saved and why, as you've said.

In any case, my main query is to whether either of these views - PotS or OSAS - require the adoption of any other point of Calvinism or any particular system of thought. Unlike the other points in TULIP, it doesn't seem to me that they do. I grew up in mostly Southern Baptist or non-denominational churches/schools, and was always taught an "eternal security" type of view.

[Homer]

OSAS belief is that salvation is acquired by believing in Jesus at one point in time. Salvation is then secure because Jesus is faithful and does not depend in any way on the person's faithfulness. POTS believes that the regenerated person will persevere until death or else the person was never regenerated. This does not mean that the person will never stumble and fall into sin, he will inevitably recover and be brought back.

A difficult verse for the non-Calvinist that seems to support the Calvinist "P":

1 John 2:19, New American Standard Bible (NASB)

19. They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

[psimmond]

Singalphile, it seems to me that neither PotS nor OSAS require the adoption of any other point of Calvinism. And although PotS and OSAS are similar, I can see how OSAS can do much more damage to the Church.

[dwilkins]

No Doug,
Unlimited atonement doesn't necessarily result in universalism. Four-point Calvinists who reject limited atonement say If Christ paid for the sins of all people on the cross but the Holy Spirit only draws/regenerates a subset of the whole, it will only be that subset (the elect) who are reconciled to God.

So why would Christ pay for the sins of all rather than just the sins of the elect? Well, if you're a four-point Calvinists who believes this way, you just say, "The Bible says it, so I believe it. It's a mystery."

It might be that some four point Calvinists think this is true, but this is the reason the five point Calvinists roll their eyes at them. It's incoherent. If everyone's sins were forgiven through PSA then on what grounds do you send any of them to hell?

Doug

[dwilkins]

In any case, my main query is to whether either of these views - PotS or OSAS - require the adoption of any other point of Calvinism or any particular system of thought. Unlike the other points in TULIP, it doesn't seem to me that they do. I grew up in mostly Southern Baptist or non-denominational churches/schools, and was always taught an "eternal security" type of view.

- They both require (or at least in ever case I've ever seen them described they willingly do so) adopting PSA as a mode of atonement.

- In POTS, someone who really believed can help but follow through with his faith. This would indicate either that God makes sure the person dies on a good day, or that the effect of the spirit in him is so powerful that he can't lose faith. Since there seems to be a lot of talk about people falling away from the faith and such I think this indicates that God arranges the person's death so that it's at a time that he's showing at least a minimally acceptable amount of faith.

- POTS at least requires that foreknowledge of which sins a person is going to commit is available to God so that just the right number are forgiven. Otherwise we'd have saved people without their sins forgiven or condemned people with some of their sins forgiven.

- OSAS requires this perfect foreknowledge too.

- POTS is compatible with all of the schools of lapserianism that I'm aware of. I don't think OSAS works well with Superlaserianism, but seems to work with the others.

I'll try to think of more.

Doug