OSAS Revamps it's Image: Not Sinners nor Saints

[mailmandan]

Enough of this baloney about OSAS. Since you are OBSESSED with this, you need to ask yourself exactly what your problem is. Or visit a shrink.

 

[ScottA]

I know you think this is a profound line of questions but I do not. How's that for binary? ;)

You are asking a relational questions about things that are not related. For some reason, your orientation is above your pay grade, a timeless God, when your existence if a function of time. So, your question amounts to a variant of 'what is the color of orange.'

Well, then you break your own rules, because your question of me was also not related. But I answered for you--and now you don't answer me, reducing your whole position and method to a mere dodge...throwing in opinion and criticisms.

If your method were legit, the least you could do is to perceive what the correct question should be (as I did for you) and rephrase it (as I did). Remember this your method on the rocks. Want to try again?

 

[robert derrick]

To properly summarize the OSAS doctrine, we cannot ever forget their ex post facto rationalization; that if anyone does sin in the future, they were never 'really' saved to begin with.

This violates hypothesis testing of the scientific method. If a hypothesis is valid, it must have a rejection criteria. Otherwise, it is inherently flawed, like trinitarianism. Today one asserted that something is NOT diametrically opposed to trinitarianism. I asked what is. No answer. If there is no scenario that would invalidate the claim, it cannot be a validate claim. This is basic epistemology.

We can examine the ranges of no one is saved, everyone is saved and ask for evidence that anyone is saved. To bring it to a simple and tangible example, I suppose a drowning man.

Jesus throws him a life saver. The drowning man must chose to grab hold of the life saver. The boat back to the shore tips over and the man finds himself drowning once more.
Once done, once saved, to assert the drowning man can never again find himself in such a scenario is to deny the risks of life.​

Q. Can a man, once saved, be in mortal danger again?
A. Yes. See above scenario.

The OSAS crowd cannot produce a scenario where what they assert can be true without invoking their ex post facto rationalization.

1. What is 'rejection criteria'.
2. What is 'something not diametrically opposes to trinitarianism'.
3. How does not having a scenario that invalidates a claim, make a claim invalid.

 

[Wrangler]

1. What is 'rejection criteria'.
2. What is 'something not diametrically opposes to trinitarianism'.
3. How does not having a scenario that invalidates a claim, make a claim invalid.

If you assert something it is either true or false. A valid assertion is falsifiable - in terms of the assertion being verifiable.

There are degrees of verification, which delves into epistemology. This, coupled with moral imperative sets the stage for how important something is.

For instance, suppose I tell you I watched a TV show last night and was alone. Not verifiable but also not too important.

However, if I am in an emergency situation and mistakenly tell rescuers My location, they can verify where I am NOT and it’s importance is a matter of life and death.

So, the rejection criteria is that I said I was at Location X and they verified that I was not.

 

[robert derrick]

If you assert something it is either true or false. A valid assertion is falsifiable - in terms of the assertion being verifiable.

There are degrees of verification, which delves into epistemology. This, coupled with moral imperative sets the stage for how important something is.

For instance, suppose I tell you I watched a TV show last night and was alone. Not verifiable but also not too important.

However, if I am in an emergency situation and mistakenly tell rescuers My location, they can verify where I am NOT and it’s importance is a matter of life and death.

So, the rejection criteria is that I said I was at Location X and they verified that I was not.

You simply mean eliminating the impossible. There must be a way to verify what is false, so as to confirm what may be true.

How does that apply to Jesus is God and the Godhead being Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

 

[Wrangler]

You simply mean eliminating the impossible. There must be a way to verify what is false, so as to confirm what may be true.

How does that apply to Jesus is God and the Godhead being Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

Well, I thought we were talking about OSAS and the ex post facto component of it, which is not falsifiable. If you want to apply it to the mystical dualism of the trinity, OK.

 

[robert derrick]

Well, I thought we were talking about OSAS and the ex post facto component of it, which is not falsifiable. If you want to apply it to the mystical dualism of the trinity, OK.

Not so fast pardner, you brought it up first.

This violates hypothesis testing of the scientific method. If a hypothesis is valid, it must have a rejection criteria. Otherwise, it is inherently flawed, like trinitarianism. Today one asserted that something is NOT diametrically opposed to trinitarianism. I asked what is. No answer. If there is no scenario that would invalidate the claim, it cannot be a validate claim. This is basic epistemology.

And you slipped it in here on purpose, under the banner of rebuking OSAS.

And so, I want to you to replay it for me, to see if I am like that 'one asserted who had no answer', to see if I do have an answer.

But, I first need to understand the challenge you make.

 

[Wrangler]

Not so fast pardner, you brought it up first.

And you slipped it in here on purpose, under the banner of rebuking OSAS.

And so, I want to you to replay it for me, to see if I am like that 'one asserted who had no answer', to see if I do have an answer.

But, I first need to understand the challenge you make.

Hmmm. It was a new poster not you who denied a falsifiable or rejection criteria. It was on my mind when I made the post as an example but I did not mean to derail the thread on OSAS.

Without going into details, in another thread someone said X (evidence submitted to OPPOSE) the proposition is actually good evidence in SUPPORT of the proposition. That is when I asked when then would oppose the proposition, what would be a statement of evidence diametrically opposite the proposition.

If one's epistemology is that all evidence supports a proposition - actual and theoretical constructs - what you have is a premise that violates hypothesis testing of the scientific method. That is to say, an invalid premise. Ever read Candide by Voltaire? A character supposed this is the best of all possible worlds. He always theorized it could be worse than it is - no matter how bad it got and it is our limited mind that cannot grasp how we live in the best possible world. A fasinating work of fiction.

 

[robert derrick]

Without going into details, in another thread someone said X (evidence submitted to OPPOSE) the proposition is actually good evidence in SUPPORT of the proposition. That is when I asked when then would oppose the proposition, what would be a statement of evidence diametrically opposite the proposition.

I guess this isn't what I was thinking of. There is no Scriptural evidence that Jesus is not the Christ, Lord, and God of our salvation.

The point being, that all proof that God is, is by Scripture, and so all proof that Christ is God must also be by Scripture.

I was thinking along the lines that once we rule out the impossible, that the Word was not God, then we must accept that He may indeed be God.

I don't mind apply Voltaire reasoning to Scripture, but he was an unbeliever that declared God dead.

 

[Wrangler]

There is no Scriptural evidence that Jesus is not the Christ, Lord, and God of our salvation.

This is denial. The question is what evidence would qualify as Scriptural support AGAINST the trinity? What would that look like? What combination of words would qualify as rejection criteria?

By contrast, my starting point is the precise opposite of yours. That there is no direct, and explicit teaching of the trinity in the Bible. My rejection criteria is a verse like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever. If there were such a verse, it would be the most quoted verse in Scripture by those who claim one’s salvation depends on believing it. The concept of the trinity is so important that in 66 books, it is not mentioned once!

Getting back to OSAS, the same reasoning applies. Rejection criteria are the many verses of believers being destroyed, such as salt thrown away, branches that don’t produce fruit thrown into the fire, not all who call Jesus Lord, Lord, will be saved.

Hope this helps.

 

[robert derrick]

This is denial. The question is what evidence would qualify as Scriptural support AGAINST the trinity? What would that look like? What combination of words would qualify as rejection criteria?

Ok, now you're talking plain. Thanks.

The Word was not God, would do.

 

[robert derrick]

By contrast, my starting point is the precise opposite of yours. That there is no direct, and explicit teaching of the trinity in the Bible. My rejection criteria is a verse like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever. If there were such a verse, it would be the most quoted verse in Scripture by those who claim one’s salvation depends on believing it. The concept of the trinity is so important that in 66 books, it is not mentioned once!

But such a Scripture is not necessary, since we do have one sufficient for it: And the Word was God.

God is the God of sound minds and honest hearts, and so He does not play childish games with unbelievers. He says the Word was God, and so any simple believing son of His would therefore read all Scripture with that truth.

Those who are willing to reject the truth of that one simple verse of Scripture, still would not believe it, if there was a verse written as you describe:

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

And so, since there is no Scripture saying Christ is not God, but there is one of saying the Word was Go, we see that the abundance of evidence in Scripture, is that Christ was God. You demand of God to repeat Himself in some greater way, that you still would never be satisfied with, such as: the Word was God, and so the Word was God in deed and in truth, and so no man saith by the Holy Ghost that the Word was not God.

You see my point. Once is good enough for me, and not for you.

And since there is no Scripture saying the Word and Christ the Lord was not God, then you cannot say He was not. You can however endlessly go on trying to read other Scriptures to infer it, but you can't prove it. I can prove by Scripture that the Word was God.

OSAS spends all their time corrupting every Scripture they can pertaining to Justification by Christ, just to disprove James 2:24. You do likewise just to disprove John 1:1.

By contrast, my starting point is the precise opposite of yours. That there is no direct, and explicit teaching of the trinity in the Bible. My rejection criteria is a verse like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever. If there were such a verse, it would be the most quoted verse in Scripture by those who claim one’s salvation depends on believing it. The concept of the trinity is so important that in 66 books, it is not mentioned once!

Now, I am not saying however that someone not holding to the truth that the Word was God, cannot be saved and justified by Jesus Christ. In fact, by your teachings on righteousness and justification of Christ, you are far more credible in being justified by Christ than any OSAS hypocrite. And if you are doing what you preach, then far be it from me to judge otherwise.

For example, here is the doctrinal truth of being saved and justified by Christ, that I hold to and live by:

Becoming sons of God by faith in Jesus, is to begin purifying our hearts and cleansing our minds through the eternal Spirit, from unrighteous and tempting thoughts for the flesh and world of iniquity. By doing so through the faith of Jesus, we can also therefore cleanse our hands in blameless living. But if we do fall to temptation and sin in the flesh by lust of the spirit, we can confess it from the heart to Jesus, and He will forgive us our sin, and restore to us the surety, hope, and joy of our salvation.

Do you agree?

 

[Wrangler]

Ok, now you're talking plain. Thanks.

The Word was not God, would do.

No. The 'word was God' is figurative language, referring to God's words not his chosen suffering servant.

 

[Wrangler]

But such a Scripture is not necessary, since we do have one sufficient for it: And the Word was God.

Not even close to being a trinity statement like I made.

 

[PinSeeker]

"The 'word was God' is figurative language, referring to God's words not his chosen suffering servant."

Hard to make that jump, considering what John says just a few verses later (verse 14), that "the Word became flesh and resided among us, and we had a view of his glory, a glory such as belongs to an only-begotten son from a father; and he was full of divine favor and truth..." John went from figurative to stone-cold literal somewhere in that brief passage? No, most assuredly not.



I'm still waiting to any kind of reconciliation between Isaiah and John:

On one hand, Isaiah, in prophesying about John the Baptist, says, "A voice of one calling out in the wilderness: “Clear up* the way of Jehovah! Make a straight highway through the desert for our God." (Isaiah 40:3)

And John the Baptist says, "I am a voice of someone crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make the way of Jehovah straight,' just as Isaiah the prophet said... I baptize in water. One is standing among you whom you do not know, the one coming behind me, the lace of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie... See, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"



...and also any kind of reconciliation between the fact that Jesus is both the Son of God and the Son of man.

Grace and peace to all.

 

[PinSeeker]

As for OSAS and this continuing ranting and raving... :) Those who believe that someone who has been given eternal life ~ and thus saved ~ either intentionally or inadvertently believe in self-justification and ~ again, either intentionally or inadvertently ~ reject the eternalness of God... and that all His promises have their 'yes' and 'amen' in Christ.

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus... those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified... we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us... neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." [Romans 8]

"In (Christ) you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in Him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, Who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of (the Father's) glory." [Ephesians 1:13-14]

"...the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ... has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." [1 Peter 1:3-5]​

Paul speaks to the elementary objection some folks naturally have to "OSAS" when he says, a perceived ~ misperceived, actually ~ license to sin:

"Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
For if we have been united with Him in a death like His, we shall certainly be united with Him in a resurrection like His. We know that our old self was crucified with Him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with Him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over Him. For the death He died He died to sin, once for all, but the life He lives He lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace." [Romans 6]​

Emphases added, of course.

Grace and peace to all.

 

[robert derrick]

No. The 'word was God' is figurative language, referring to God's words not his chosen suffering servant.

As I said. You do not want to believe John 1:1 as written, and so you destroy it. And that is why you twist every other Scripture pertaining to the godhead, in order to infer you are justified in doing so.

This is why I no longer argue with you idolators. You have no honor nor credibility with Scripture in this regard.

Nevertheless, you give no Scripture suitable that states plainly the word was not God, which would be sufficient to show there is no true God of the Bible, since the two verses would plainly contradict one another, which the true God would never do.

Not even close to being a trinity statement like I made.

And so, we see how you have no integrity about reading what others teach, even as you don't have with Scripture.

That is a common among you created christers, as well as OSASers.

Since you both corrupt much Scripture to reject John 1:1 or James 2:24, you also willingly corrupt what others are saying.

 

[robert derrick]

As for OSAS and this continuing ranting and raving... :) Those who believe that someone who has been given eternal life ~ and thus saved ~ either intentionally or inadvertently believe in self-justification and ~ again, either intentionally or inadvertently ~ reject the eternalness of God... and that all His promises have their 'yes' and 'amen' in Christ.

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus... those whom He predestined He also called, and those whom He called He also justified, and those whom He justified He also glorified... we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us... neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." [Romans 8]

"In (Christ) you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in Him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, Who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of (the Father's) glory." [Ephesians 1:13-14]

"...the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ... has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." [1 Peter 1:3-5]​

Paul speaks to the elementary objection some folks naturally have to "OSAS" when he says, a perceived ~ misperceived, actually ~ license to sin:

"Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
For if we have been united with Him in a death like His, we shall certainly be united with Him in a resurrection like His. We know that our old self was crucified with Him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with Him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over Him. For the death He died He died to sin, once for all, but the life He lives He lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace." [Romans 6]​

Emphases added, of course.

Grace and peace to all.

As I pointed out, as with the created christers rejecting John 1:1, you OSASers have also learned to corrupt much Scripture, just to reject James 2:24.

You both have learned to write many many words, go to the Greek and Hebrew, and corrupt the teachings of others, in order to do so.

You call this ranting and raving, because you hate the proven sensibility of it. I no longer argue you with you endlessly verse by verse, but only point out what you are doing in the process.

 

[Wrangler]

As I said. You do not want to believe John 1:1 as written

The precise opposite is the case. Words are WHAT's not WHO's. The entire reason you put all your investment in imposing trinitarian interpretation onto unitarian text is because there is no direct trinitarian verse. You have nothing else but to grasp as shadows.

Scripture is the most famous book in the world for being explicit. People say 'thou shalt' and 'written in stone' to invoke such precise and explicit language. Regarding Jesus, Scripture is equally precise and explicit. Mark 1:1 opens with announcing Jesus is the son of god. This proves he is not God, God incarnate or any kind of deity. Jesus is divine, of God. To be 'of' is not to be 'is.' It's really quite simple. The idolatry is not with those who refuse to impose a non-montheist interpretation onto monotheist text.

 

[robert derrick]

I'm not the one reshaping my image from that of the self-proclaimed sinners of modern Christianity, into that of not being sinners, and can't even sin anymore.

You people simply have no stableness of mind and integrity of what you try to teach from one time to another.

What I marvel at is watching it all unfold so plainly. Before this sight, I knew there were OSAS hypocrites in Christianity, but I just never knew how delusional in your doctrine you are, in order to justify yourselves in it.

I mean, I understand wanting tob e sinners saved by grace and justified by faith alone, but to plumb such depths of spiritual psychosis in order to do it, is pretty mindboggling.

I understand fully now how blown away John felt as seeing it all at once in the open:

And when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.