/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

this is autism but I got a chuckle

>>716763

makes sense to me

>>716761

What evidence is there that anyone with a sincere belief in Christ has apostatized? Something more than hearsay would be nice.

>>716768

You should ask, how do you know you wont apostasize?

>>716770

You are making the claim that it is possible, so prove your claim.

>>716774

If you cannot answer that question my point stands, you literally need to have omniscience to infallibly claim OSAS. Saying stuff like "when have those that have true belief apostasize" wont work, because OSAS believers claim the salvation of others are virtually unknown. Therefore the question is meaningless and what matters is whether I have that belief and the knowledge that I am OSAS.

Also, as you dont know about others, you cant even by definition know whether Mr Y or Tentacion doesnt have true belief. You dont even know their internal dipositions so if you ask that question, you are implying you know something Mr Y or Tentacion dont know which means you are contradicting the claim the salvation of others cannot be known

I've said it to Prots making bad arguments about the intercession of the saints and I'll say it again here. Even if we make the assumption that someone knows tons of things about a certain subject they aren't omniscient, stop misusing words

>>716777

Are you saying it is possible for a person to have the same mode of knowledge as God in this life?

Think about it

>>716776

If you can't prove the claim that your entire post rests on then its worthless. There is no need for me to answer questions based on unfounded assumptions.

>>716779

My claim is OSAS believers must have the same mode of knowledge as God to know they are truly OSAS. It takes into account the very nonsense your side spews and shows how it further adds to my claim. If you dont like it and cannot provide an answer, dont answer. It's that simple.

>>716779

And again notice, you ignored my question and the reasons I provided as to why your question is redundant. And yet all i got from this OSAS God complex man is the fallacy of "proof by assertion".

Here's a tip, if you cant explain how my points rest on "unfounded assumptions", it's probably because you found zero justification for your claim

>>716778

Literally where did I say that?

Let me give you an example. Lets say God gives me the knowledge of the end state, saved or unsaved, of every person that ever has or will exist, and the ability to retain that knowledge. You come up to me and ask me the 20th digit of pi. I don't know that because in this scenario God has given me complete knowledge of one subject, not all things, I'm not omniscient in that scenario

>>716782

Ok you got a point there. How about this, indeed if OSAS then those counterfactuals and contingent actions will be known. If they are known, OSAS advocates can easily tell us some of these counterfactuals but they cannot and thus contradict themselves on OSAS!

>>716780

>>716781

I believe that your question is based on unfounded assumptions because you absolutely refuse to prove them. If your assumptions are founded on truth then provide the evidence. I never even claimed to be OSAS so how exactly am I even supposed to answer? Please prove your premise.

>>716783

I'm not even interacting with the rest of this thread and it's development, I just get triggered by omniscient being missused

>>716784

Go to the Galatians thread, one anon there says that OSAS makes no claims on the salvation of others and he also says they "wont fall away". They clearly have to know they are OSAS and they are really saved. But as my argument shows, that entails a form of knowledge that only God has by implication

You cant tell me that 40yrs later you will still believe because you have insufficient information. God can because He has the sufficiency of information.

So by extension the OSAS must have this which they dont

>>716785

Whatever Papist

>>716788

I aint no diapa licka my nibba

>>716790

ok Slav

>>716787

You haven't approached an attempt to answer my question because you know you can't prove the assumption. This is pathetic and you aren't nearly as smart as you obviously think you are.

>>716794

>he doesnt show why his accusation is the case

>he cant even address the basic questions asked

Are you an NPC?

>>716794

You are just unable to handle the truth. And I can say this because you have now shown to be unresponsive to reasoned answers when they are provided

Cognitive Dissonance much

>>716794

Answer him now.

>>716791

>posts anime pic

>insults anyone

>>716804

You think this is funny? You should be a Catholic now

>>716805

I am

Great point OP. Now wait for the butthurt Baptists

>>716797

How can your assertion be founded if it lacks evidence? You didn't ask me a question in the post I was replying to and I've already told you I don't say I'm OSAS.

>>716799

Pure rhetoric, no substance, sad.

>>716800

Good to see Christians practicing fairness. Apparently my question, which was the first question asked in this thread is just going to be ignored, but I should answer a question about a belief that I don't hold.

>>716807

8chan Baptists just believe you are saved by an honest profession of faith at one point though, no matter what action they will ever take. Trying to make this into omniscience is like trying to say I'm omniscient because I am 100% sure I was born the first time

>>716808

Yes, because you so totally addressed why what I said are "assertions" and my explanations of why "proof of true belief apostasizing" dont work.

You either never met a Baptist who preach OSAS which then I direct you to Anderson or Bock's "Theology of Luke-Acts" which alludes to some of the beliefs of OSAS.

If this is not the case, you are probably a very triggered OSAS believer

>>716809

Wow. Then this is for the slightly smarter OSAS believers

>>716811

>you so totally addressed why what I said are "assertions"

An assertion is just a claim. Are you going to tell me that your OP doesn't claim that apostilization occurs? If so you'll be lying. If the answer is yes then prove it.

>my explanations of why "proof of true belief apostasizing"

Is there such a thing as true belief in Christ?

>>716815

I mean no not yes.

>>716815

How does one know true belief in Christ that is such that one will absolutely forever trust him?

Stop running away

>>716819

Apostasy being possible is a presupposition of your question. I don't know if apostasy is possible, which is the whole reason I've been asking you to prove it without hearsay. If a belief system can't even prove its most fundamental presupposition then I have no reason to trust it.

>>716832

Why is Apostasy IMPOSSIBLE? Are you one of those Calvinists that say only the elect are saved so no apostasy exist?

>>716833

>I don't know if this is possible

>WHAT THE HELL WHY IS IT IMPOSSIBLE!?!?!?!?!!?

lmao

>>716839

If you dont know if Apostasy is impossible that still destroys OSAS

>>716964

It's pathetic you cant address what is provided which shows OSAS believers hate the truth. Which is why they cannot .exegete

>>716761

derp pseud, knowing ur saved doesn't mean u know evrything about everythingg

>>716966

Is Jesus going to save his sheep or is he not?

Is everlasting life everlasting or is it not?

>>716967

It does entail knowing every contingent free action you will take which is the kind of knowledge only God has. But no OSAS believer believes this. Therefore OSAS is false

>>716968

Which says nothing about whether you know you are forever saved can be known or not

>>716968

>>716966

Is God truly sovereign or is He not?

Does He keep His word or does He not?

>>716973

My argument still works even if divine determinism is supposed. Just because God determines some are elect doesnt equate to you knowing about whether you are this elect or not. Unless he tells you directly. So OSAS cannot be true by definition because no one can know with certainty his election

>>716976

>God says if you believe on Jesus Christ, you have (present tense) everlasting life

>yeah but how do YOU know?

>>716983

>One time belief and free to sin forever more

The epitome of theology

>>716986

What do you mean "free" to sin?

You honestly believe someone who believes on our Lord Jesus will want to commit grievous sins?

Would it be more likely that that person never believed on Jesus in the first place?

God promises to put his Holy Spirit in our hearts once we believe on his Son. I can attest to this fact.

You realize the thought of foolishness is sin?

You realize ALL lies are sins?

You realize that in God's eyes, if you think one foolish thought or tell one lie, you are equal to a murderer?

>>716989

As long as a one time belief is sufficient for salvation, that means what that anon outlined.

But regardless given your own views here it shows that those who believe must persevere. If this is so, OSAS is false, as no one have the knowledge to say that 100yrs from now, I wont fall away.

Is it OSASaturday?

https://8ch.net/christian/res/716823.html

https://8ch.net/christian/res/714810.html

>>716994

Forgot this one

>>716738

>>716969

no it doesn't its a matter of intuition and faith.

>how do i know i am saved if i don't know the future actions

>how do i know i am saved if christianity could be false

^ still applies to catholodoxy, its just a further step away.

>>717000

Catholics and Orthodox dont claim that one can really know if they are forever saved once they believe. They also agree that one can fall away. So this isnt a problem for them as they accept the uncertainty.

But it is a problem for YOU because you claim to be able to know if you OSAS

>>717000

Also, saying it is a matter of intuition and faith doesnt make the problem go away, as those who are Saved dont know of they will fall away some time in the future and thus they delude themselves in the present.

Given this uncertainty, OSAS is nonsense, unless every contingent free act is known which then makes it certain

>>717003

i dont see how you need to know the future? its really a matter of fact kind of thing.

im not prot im just being 'devil's advocate'

>>717005

Because if they fall away, other OSAS will say they were never saved to begin with despite being born again. Dont you agree, people fall away

You're right that your argument destroys perseverance of the saints when mixed with OSAS, as Andersonites claim. But does it truly destroy all OSAS flavors?

Let me attempt to save OSAS.

"I am saved" refers to one's salvific state at a certain moment in time. If the world ended just then, that person would be saved.

If the world continues, though, and that person falls away, he loses his salvation. He can get it back by finding his way back to the faith, but I state here clearly, he was saved and he lost it. You can lose your salvation if you lose your belief.

Therefore, saying you can know whether you're saved or not is also true, since you know whether or not you believe.

Have I not saved OSAS?

>>717010

You didnt save OSAS. You literally said something every non OSAS agrees with. At best OSAS can only be true if once a person is saved, the world is destroyed immediately after. Only in that instance is OSAS true in some way but not everyone who is Saved experienced this.

Also if anyone can lose belief and salvation, then by definition OSAS is false

>>717012

I disagree. I think you're taking the "OSAS" acronym too literally. Remember, "once saved always saved" was invented by the doctrinal enemies of OSAS. Anderson and others took the label in the same way homosexuals subsumed "gay".

Before the invention of the slur it was called "eternal security".

I think if you restate OSAS as "Once saved, regardless of sin, you're always saved." But if you tie salvation and belief firmly together, and you don't treat unbelief itself as a sin, my rationalization works.

>>717014

Look at your own explanation you said in your own words that

>If the world continues, though, and that person falls away, he loses his salvation. He can get it back by finding his way back to the faith, but I state here clearly, he was saved and he lost it. You can lose your salvation if you lose your belief.

So no, you didnt save OSAS, you simply affirmed what those who deny it believe. As your own explanation says that unbelief is the condition for the loss of salvation. So it's not really OSAS. If you want to call that "eternal security" then fine if you define it in a way consistent with your description

>>716761

>omniscience: knowledge of everything

>OSAS: knowledge of your own salvation

What’s with the brainlet anti-Baptists posts that have been cropping up lately? Chuck this one in the trash next to the “is the KJV idolatry?????” thread

>>717045

Are you mad, Baptist?

>>717046

But I’m not Baptist

>>717051

>t. baptist

>>716761

how does it follow that you're omniscient? has anyone claimed osas means they know everything? Cause I've never seen that

>>717075

They wont say that but it is the logical outcome as I shown

>>716761

I think you're overthinking it. I'm pretty sure that OSAS believers think that their sin simply won't count as sin anymore, after their supposed moment of salvation.

>>716761

At last I truly see.

>>717144

Its still sin. It has just been paid for like every other sin I have done in my life.

Being saved doesn't mean you automatically stop sinning. It's a daily battle between what you know is right and wrong according to God.

Having the mindset that it's okay to sin because its already been paid for doesn't sound like the individual has accepted Christ as his savior.

Loving Jesus means knowing he's there to pay/paid the price for our sin means to me at least I desperately don't want to add more to his already lengthy tally.

Do I still sin however? Yep. Still human. Still mess up from time to time. We all do.

I know what I do is wrong but I still do it anyway and feel like garbage afterwards.

Like I mentioned before, it's a battle.

The antiOSAS crowd should worry about their own salvation instead of trying to persuade others to stop believing in theirs.

We all have sin that will require payment. Only through our savior Jesus can we avoid hell.

>>717175

Here is the thing, my entire argument from Galatians doesnt even relate to the issue of a believer who stumble in sin. In fact that isnt even the key context of Galatians although near the end it could be mentioned or "faith working through love" but none of these say anything about OSAS is true because as my argument shown, if someone abandons the gospel of Christ for another, he loses his salvation. Remember, Paul consider his audience as being justified by faith, knowing the Gospel and having been Baptized alongside having the experience of the Spirit.

So ultimately you ask the anti OSAS crowd to focus on their own sins. Well here's the thing, Lutherans pretty much accept we all sin daily even a Catholic could. But none condone OSAS and have a focus on penance instead.

OSAS believers are really just sola ego

>Baptists into sola ego

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

>>718473

>t. butthurt Baptist

Truly ingenious

If Christianity is true, those who are Christian must be omniscient. Sounds weird? Dont worry I will explain.

Suppose you are Christian, so you make a statement,

"Jesus is Lord".

The statement "Jesus is Lord" only refers to a present moment. It does not say whether 5 years later or 10 years later Jesus would still be Lord. This is because from this point I do not know if something might happen that would cause Jesus to lose his authority and because I dont know, that will be a possibility down the line and hence whether Jesus will continue to be Lord is not an absolute statement of fact given this uncertainty.

Now suppose the Christian viewpoint, which states that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. You can even know whether this is so. The problem is, people change all the time. Sure the Christian can say they Jesus is divine or perfect in Heaven. But then this lack of knowledge about what s happening in Heaven means there is always the possibility that you feel the Christianity is true but it isn’t. So there is a chance you are deluding yourself. But then the Christian believer claims you can know the nature of Jesus Christ which given the uncertainties laid out entails access to a mode of knowledge where one can be certain and surely assured that Jesus is Lord.

To posit this however, one must know Jesus will ALWAYS be God forever. But no one can know this given our limited knowledge as pointed out prior, so the only way for the Christian believer to know Christian is true is to literally know every single contingent action that has, had, and will happen in Heaven. He must know every single counterfactual of the spiritual realm to know Christianity is true. The problem of course, this entails a mode of knowledge only an omniscient being like God hasz (sic) who will infallibly know all counterfactuals and contingent action. And so the Christian believer must claim omniscience to know if he should be Christian

for brainless who don’t get it, OSAS is a statement of faith that is backed using scripture and evidence, not actual knowledge of everything ever. It’s the same as any other aspect of Christianity

>>719606

Nope. OSAS demands omniscience for the reasons OP explains.

Your attempt to use an Ad Hominem argument results in a catastrophic failure too because the logic of OP doesnt apply or parallel that of any other Christian because a Christian who says "Jesus is Lord" isnt making a statement about himself or something mutable. All that Christian is doing is stating a person called Jesus is Lord who is God. He can also justify this adequately by other ways such as deducing from Scripture and its historical reliability which isnt the same as OSAS.

Why? Because this isnt a claim about "forever I believe Jesus is Lord", it is a claim about a being mentioned in a series of documents which when it is looked at, reveals historical reliability which gives grounding to the proposition "Jesus is Lord"

When the claim of OSAS is made, it cannot follow this or Scripture, because OSAS says you CAN know you are eternally saved and because as OP explains, there are plenty of uncertainties and ignorance, that entails a mode of knowledge that demands omniscience and the knowledge of every single counterfactual one had, has and will take, demanding omniscience.

This differs from a Christian saying "Jesus is Lord" because that is a premise and a statement of someone. Secondly sufficient reasonable basis is available for that statement but that doesnt apply to OSAS, because someone who believes now cant even by normal epistemological standards, know he is eternally saved. In fact Scripture denies this as shown by how believers are required to examine themselves. Galatians also demolishes OSAS

So OSAS is not Scriptural, which gives any real Christian reason to reject it. It demands this weird omniscience to work, which is nonsense

>>719606

>OSAS isnt a knowledge claim

How to flule epistemology 101

>>716990

No, believers don't HAVE to stop sinning.

We love God because he first loved us (by saving us).

If we love him, we should keep his commandments. We are compelled to sin less and less. It's that simple. What do you not understand? His yoke is light. Our sins and iniquities will he remember no more.

>>719701

Ah yes ignore God's own mouth about the sheep and the goats and taking up one's cross

Goldstar!

>>719704

You don't have to be a "disciple" to be saved. You do, however, have to take up your cross daily to be one.

If we say we have no sin, we lie.

Speaking of sheep and goats…

You realize Christ Jesus promises that his sheep SHALL be saved? Right?

>>719706

>Calvismo engage

Saying we take up our Cross DOESNT necessarily entail OSAS.

>>719709

It's this simple. I love God because he saved me, and because I love him, I want to keep his commandments.

This fulfills the promise: when we believe on Christ Jesus, the Holy Ghost will be planted in our heart, which compels us to follow his will better and better, but never perfectly. We will never quit sinning until we leave our present sinful body.

The Pharisees believed in faith + works. They had faith, else they wouldn't do works. It is faith alone that God deems righteous. It is the final Passover, where he shall judge all except the saved. The wrath of God abideth not on those who have the Son.

>>719713

If you truly want to deny OSAS and keep your Calvinism it's easy to say we either dont know…oh wait that isnt what Calvin or the London Baptist Confession said.

So yes, say all that but it doesnt NECESSITATE OSAS. Why? Because even Papists believe all good work flows from Grace

>>719723

>Caths say all good works come from grace, which comes from God

>Caths day your good works determine whether you will be saved or not

>God judges YOU based on the good works that HE does

Seeing where it doesn’t make any sense?

God made his sheep to be saved and the goats to be destroyed. This is the clear teaching of the Bible. I’m sorry you can’t use this true doctrine to lord over people by threatening their salvation.

>>719732

>le calvinist reasoning

Nope. Try again. James, Luke and Matthew are contradicting Jesus if what you said is true. Why did the sheeps get in? It's because they did good works but they know not. They cared for the poor. The goats didnt.

Now let's look at Galatians, it says if they carry on with their rebellion, Christ will have no effect upon them. Again contradicting OSAS

https://8ch.net/christian/res/714810.html

Here, a brave anon shows using the Greek tenses and context why OSAS is against Scripture and no Baptist can refute

>>717144

Want to correct this. I forgot that there are several forms of OSAS.

There are 2 forms of OSAS that I know of. The Easy-believism one, which I described in the referenced post. And the Calvinist one, which pretty much states that the chosen ones, if they backslide or renounce the faith, will eventually come back to God.