/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

1)What is Once Saved Always Saved?

Once Saved Always Saved, or OSAS is the view of some Protestants, usually Baptists, that once someone confesses Christ as Lord and Saviour, there is nothing that person can do to lose his salvation. In fact as the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist pastor Steven Anderson states in his sermon on OSAS, even if you try to sin and disbelieve, you are still saved. This possibility is also acknowledged in his sermon “Shall we continue in Sin” where he states that:

“Now here's  the  thing,  If  I  don't  talk  to  my  wife  and  my  wife  doesn't  talk  to  me  we  are  not  going  to  have  a  good  relationship. But  are  we  still  married?  Yes    we  are,  see  what  I  mean?  So  if  I  don't  talk  to  God  through  prayer  and  He  doesn't  talk  to  me through  his  work,  we're  not  going  to  have  a  good  relationship  (though  I'm  still  saved).”

Notice that if one doesnt pray to God after one is saved, then he is still considered saved, although he wont have a “good relationship” with God. It means clearly this person isnt going to suffer Hell for this and other intentionally sinful actions.

Of course unfortunately for OSAS believers, Scripture proves them wrong and here we will look at Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians to see why such is the case.

>>714811

2)Galatians 1

In the opening of the epistle to the Galatians, Paul already post statements that would not make sense if OSAS is true as the following verses demonstrate:

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Here Paul announces that he his “marvelled” at how the Galatians were “so soon removed” from the Grace of Christ. Anderson tries to avoid the implication of this statement by stating in his sermon on Galatians 1 that these Galatians arent Saved. But this view already makes Anderson inconsistent with himself. As him and many OSAS advocates believe, baptism comes after one is saved. It does not have any salvific significance, as Anderson mentions in his sermon “Easter: Fact and Fiction”,

You get saved, then you get baptized

Unfortunately for Anderson, he forgotten Galatians 3:27 which says:

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

OSAS advocates will have little wiggle room here, as even in the plain english used, “have” is used, indicating that the act of Baptism was accomplished. Had Paul wanted to emphasize this as a future act, he would had instead said “for as many of you as will be baptized”. Should v27 really entail water Baptism or even just the so called spirit Baptism of many Baptists and Evangelicals, it entails Anderson as guilty of painting Paul as inconsistent as only the Saved get both of these. Hence the only way to make his eisegesis consistent is to admit that OSAS is false and Salvation may be lost, as Galatians 1:6 would address Galatians who bewitched by the Judaizers and false brethren, had fallen away or are on the verge of doing so. We now analyse Galatians 3:27 first to show why this is such.

>>714815

Next, Paul asks the question of how the Galatians received the Spirit. This unfortunately for Anderson blows his case out of the water, as such indicates that Paul presuppose that the Galatians actually received the Holy Spirit. Oddly for Anderson, he doesnt mention anything about the Spirit in v2, possibly due to this. Still, it must be clarified that this reception of the Spirit is through faith, or in this case, believing the Gospel preached and given what is stated in v27, Baptism as part of this.

Moving to v3, we see more confirmations that advice against taking the OSAS viewpoint. The phrase “having begun” is an aorist participle  ἐναρξάμενοι(enarxamenoi) which its only other reference is Philippians 1:6 which refers to the very work God will do in the believer. Bauer’s lexicon notes that in both contexts, what is referred to here is the beginning of the Christian’s life. The two verses even parallel each other, with Galatians being more ironic given its pastoral situation. This detail is left out of Anderson’s own sermon on this chapter and it is quite obvious why, once this is considered, it would entail the Galatians as actually receiving a beginning from God who works in them and having received the Spirit. These are defeaters to his interpretation that the Galatians were never Saved in the first place.

On v4, the “suffering” could invoke the sense that the Galatians went through some persecution, perhaps even due to the incursions of the Judaizers. In Anderson’s sermon, nothing of this is implied. In this verse, the particle γέ is used, as shown in the Greek render below:

τοσαῦτα ἐπάθετε εἰκῇ; εἴ γε καὶ εἰκῇ

This particle is meant to place focus on a single idea or place according to the Bauer lexicon. Thus this would suggest the Galatian’s experiences of “sufferings” to be the idea in focus. With v5 focusing on miracles and the ministering of the Spirit and the preceding v3 referring to the work of the Spirit in the Galatians, it is most likely that they also experienced the Spirit that aid them in these sufferings. Should they turn away now, all these would had be in vain. The tone of these experiences being in vain is one that may express a hope that they will reject the Judaizers in light of these experiences.

This again, nullifies the OSAS position, as the way Paul addresses the situation is one where he sees the Galatians in a real danger of making all their experiences of being Saved as being in vain. The danger of this situation with the Judaizers expressed in Galatians 2:4:

4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage

Had OSAS be what Paul had in mind, this and all we covered wouldnt be what we find when analysing the verses and letting them speak for themselves. Yet when we do, a contradictory picture of the OSAS eisegesis emerges. The context shows Paul persuading the Galatians through appeal to their spiritual experiences. Even if a baptism of the spirit is presupposed, we are still dealing with people whom by Anderson’s own beliefs would had been Saved but yet he preaches otherwise. We are left only with an inerrant Scripture contradicting itself. Yet when we look at the verses in their own proper order and context, we see a consistent Paul against the notion of OSAS

>>714810

Nice work OP. Wonder how OSAS Baptists will address these

And that's a good thing

>>714818

The way that prots answer lines such as Matthew 16:27 in regard to sola fide

>[27] For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works.

By quoting some other part of the Bible claiming that that line disproves the line in question.

>what this line REALLY means is… I don't need Magisterium to know that

What the hell is with this clickbait format? Put what you want to say in the OP, don’t have the OP just say “and here’s why” or “and that’s a good thing,” this isn’t buzzfeed

>>714873

he's the big gay

So how many good deeds are required in Gods eyes to he saved?

>>715937

And what sin will take away your salvation once you have it? Is it a one time deal or are you constantly pingponging between saved and unsaved?

What happens if I was saved 99% of my life and in my final moments lose it? Does that 99% count for nothing?

>>715947

You probably know the answer to this one, just think of verses like Hebrews 6:4-6 but form a Catholic perspective.

>>715975

OP destroys Anderson hard

>>714812

>6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

>Here Paul announces that he his “marvelled” at how the Galatians were “so soon removed” from the Grace of Christ

He doesn't say they're removed from the grace of Christ. He says they're removed from "him that called you into the grace of Christ". This seems like a pretty obvious distinction–you can have a falling out with the guy who taught you about Jesus and still be saved, but that's still a bad thing that you'd want to rectify.

>>716193

And if you took one second to read the whole verse, it says the Galatians moved to "another Gospel". Who knew that if someone decides to go to a different Gospel than the original one Jesus or Paul preached that it means you are Saved for what is essentially Apostasy. And if v8 and 9 are anything to go by, it makes them "accursed".

Your comment also ignores the other parts of Galatians where Paul speaks of Christ having no effect upon them if they take the step of Circumcision. The Greek indicates that the Galatians are in the process of doing that and if they proceed, Christ is of no effect. And this is also the same people who are known by God as Paul says and experienced the Spirit.

So literally Paul is saying "if you guys proceed, Christ is no longer of any effect upon you and what you had will be all in vain!"

This conditional destroys Anderson and OSAS. Which is probably why you can only play around with one verse from Galatians 1 and act like the rest of what I provided with reference to the Biblical Greek grammar are refuted when in fact they arent addressed

>>716249

>Who knew that if someone decides to go to a different Gospel than the original one Jesus or Paul preached that it means you are Saved for what is essentially Apostasy.

On the OSAS view, you're saved by trusting in God before you apostasized. You're not saved for your apostasy, you're saved from it.

>And if v8 and 9 are anything to go by, it makes them "accursed".

It makes the one who preached the other gospel to them accursed. Again, this seems like a really important distinction.

>So literally Paul is saying "if you guys proceed, Christ is no longer of any effect upon you and what you had will be all in vain!"

That's not even close to literally what he said.

>>714810

I doubt most Protestants believe this doctrine. Yes, God has given the gift of salvation, but gifts can be both rejected and returned. In the same way, spouses going through hard times these days are more likely to divorce than remain married and resolve their differences.

>>716457

If one is "accursed", Christ have no effect upon them. This is literally the most natural reading of the text. Even if one doesnt go deep into the Greek grammar to explain it, the fact that Paul uses words like "no effect" or "vain" are sufficient to show he rejects OSAS.

Making your affirmations without engaging with anything I listed is not an argument

>>716457

Also, according to OSAS, The Galatians either cannot fall away by necessity, or they will still be saved even if they commit apostasy.

The former is so because had one said God "foreknows" they will persevere, that simply means God knows they will and that given the Galatians are free creatures they are self moving and have the liberty of indifference to do otherwise. That simply liberty means OSAS cannot be true by definition or else we must accept the Calvinist view that those people were predestined deterministically. So the OSAS believer must then move on to saying they are still Saved even if they apostasized. But this contradicts Paul's language where he says the Galatians experienced the Spirit and justification. If they return to bondage it is in vain. Christ have no effect. If the Galatians wont lose salvation, this means Paul is either lying or he is literally opposing OSAS. Because why would he set up statements to remind Galatians of their experiences and then express fear they will be in vain? If they are saved and forever will be, it entails that it wasnt really all "in vain". And had the Galatians be OSAS, then Paul is making no sense by saying "Christ have no effect upon you", as the OSAS view clearly says all who are saved are saved by Christ' work and belief in it. So the mere fact that this is so means that even if the Galatians apostasize, Christ still have an effect on them, which is contrary to Paul's statement

Therefore OSAS is against Galatians

>>716516

No according to OSAS, saved people will not commit apostasy. Do you really think every Galatian in the Church was apostate?

>>716520

Which therefore leads to the first conclusion I outlined. Either way the fact that the Greek of Galatians indicates that the Galatians are in process of going to another Gospel and will be in a state where all Christ did will be in vain or of no effect, shows that OSAS is not in Paul's mind and he is truly concerned for the Galatians' salvation, which makes no sense to do so in his way if OSAS is true.

So you are essentially a closet Calvinist here as this is the only logical conclusion

>>716520

Also, actually read what I said rather than blindly reply. The first statement I made is that OSAS says those who are Saved cannot fall away by necessity. I then explained why this is so.

My point posit two views of OSAS. One which you claim here and another affirmed by Steven Anderson. So your OSAS is therefore closet Calvinist in nature

>>716550

“OSAS” never says other people can truly know if someone is saved or not.

Paul sees some people falling away in Galatia, either out of ignorance or true apostasy.

Writes an Epistle to the whole church so the saved can be edified.

>>716666

Which no claim about OSAS on this point is made by me here. Using the excuse of "some Galatians falling away" does not work because Paul does not single out "some" or says so at all. So we need not presume as you do which is simply dodging the truth.

Even worse, had we even assume your view, those "some Galatians" still experienced what those who are Saved experienced which is the Holy Spirit and Baptism. If your view is true, then Paul wouldnt even appeal to these as if directed at those that are falling away. This means your point is simply an excuse to eisegete

Good thread OP. None of the Baptists even addressed your point

Protestants and Papists are both sick in the damned head.

As a seminary student, I can confirm that OP's exegesis is accurate and disproves OSAS

this is the redpill. OSAS is false

animefag what do you get out of this aren't you a atheist?//

>>714811

>Once Saved Always Saved, or OSAS is the view of some Protestants, usually Baptists, that once someone confesses Christ as Lord and Saviour, there is nothing that person can do to lose his salvation

This has fell out of favor, even amongst Baptists. The new view is that you have to ask forgiveness and show contrition.

Being saved and getting Baptized is not a permanent get out of jail free card. More Catholics beleive this meme than Baptists.

>>718485

>More Catholics beleive this meme than Baptists.

We've gone full circle. First, it's OSAS and Catholics are wrong, now it's the Catholics who are OSAS and wrong.

>>718485

What's next? Baptist confessions?

>>718485

Good for them. But explain it to your friends online

OSAS Biblically refuted