The Eternal Security Heresy: A Comprehensive Refutation of OSAS

[ChristisGod]

Yes for the most part I reclon .. ... absolutely .. I believe in the Teachings of Jesus as per SOM. in particular the main teaching though.. the Rule that "Sums up the Law and the Prophets"..

That wording is kind of like alarm bells going of is it not ? "Sums up the Law and the Prophets" .. perhaps I should pay attention to this rule .. hmmmm .. are you with me so far ? ding ding ding .. no bells going off ... silence .. whats happening .. inquiring minds want to know.

and you know the rule - aka- "The Will of the Father" .. who art in Heaven .. Hallowed be is Sacred Name .. which is a coat of many colors :)

Not so tough to follow - Jesus gives you one simple rule OK .. Just try to treat others the way you would like to be treated .. Love your neighbor .. as you yourself liked to be loved .. these are my commands .. and I know them so well I can play around a bit...

Jesus restates this rule numerous times .. Judge Not lest you be judged on the standards by which you judge others ..

Jesus sets a really low bar .. Try to be more righteous than the Pharisee's .. and the Lawgivers (Martin ? - wold in sheep clothing perhaps . .need I repost is famous treatise) who Jesus hated

what is so tough about this ? If you want to be perfect .. drop everything and enter the Priesthood .. hopefully Orthodox or Protestant so you can have a wife ...

what is so difficult .. I told you did I not .. was raised Lutheran .. founder of your namesake ideology .. have close relatives (note the (s) been through the Seminary 8 years - learning Latin, Hebrew, Greek .. I didn't just wake up and have this argument yesterday .. but .. I promise that at the end of the day ... Your foundation will have become stronger .. by moving a little down the spectrum from the extremist perspective .. same with the literalism ..

Hope you read the link on "El Shaddia" - and Welcome to El - 101 .. When you go to a proper Seminary .. like the "Missouri Synod" in St. Louis .. you learn this ...modern scholarship is irrefutable in some respects .. we have biblical texts .. and know what they mean .. know what terms like "Sons of God" would have meant to an Israelite/Canaanite .. back in the days when you were named after your God ... Isra-El Samu- El .. and the text gives numeous other examples.

You believed the same thing .. everyone know who "El Shadai" was - you both speak the same language .. have lived amongst each other for hundreds of years .. intermarriage .. shared religious culture .. Everyone knows who "El" is and everyone believes in other Gods .. but each city has their own personal God .. or cities .. a collective .. as would have been the case with Israel .. YHW being their God .. and they were not to worship the others .. but they believed in their existence .. the Divine Pantheon .. everyone believed in this ... and also that there was one Top Dog .. and even if they were giving that top dog different names - it doesn't matter because they are both describing the same God..

And after all .. where did the Canaanites Come from :) .. perhaps some of the lineage still survived but they were Semetic people .. livin in the Cradle .. comingled for hundreds of years.

The Canaanite epithets for their Top Dog "El" are the same as those for YHWH .. The Creator .. the Father .. God of the Mountain - the Most High .. and numerous others..

this is a happy thing .. as - from a humanist perspective - want to get as far as possible away from the God YHWH .. who started out as El's son .. "Son of God" .. one of 70 according to the Ugaritic texts

Like Jesus .. the Son eventually became the Father. God is one .. and it matters not what we name the various emanations from the Godhead.

What matters - is the Golden Rule .. Let ye who is without Sin .. Cast the first rock .. Take log out of own eye .. and so on. so many examples he gives...

Ruth was justified by works ...

sabellianism to the core

 

[Heyzeus]

sabellianism to the core

Explain your reactionary and ill thought out response .. referencing where in my dissertation .. hard core sabellianism is to be found..

You won't get through step 1 .. but were you to surprise us .. you then have to explain what is wrong with this doctrine ..

I will look up sabellianism though :)

 

[ChristisGod]

Explain your reactionary and ill thought out response .. referencing where in my dissertation .. hard core sabellianism is to be found..

You won't get through step 1 .. but were you to surprise us .. you then have to explain what is wrong with this doctrine ..

I will look up sabellianism though :)

look it up and see yourself in the mirror

 

[justbyfaith]

Jesus sets a really low bar .. Try to be more righteous than the Pharisee's .. and the Lawgivers

Jesus intended that to be a high bar that was even unreachable...too high to be able to surmount...for the Pharisees and scribes of Jesus' day were impeccably righteous outwardly (see Philippians 3:1-9).

who Jesus hated

Really?

Jesus hates no one...for He is God...and God is love (1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:16)

When you go to a proper Seminary ..

At the Spirit-filled Bible College we used to joke and call it "cemetery".

and it matters not what we name the various emanations from the Godhead.

Sounds like gnosticism to me. You have just been identified as a false teacher, if you cannot answer the following question (correctly).

Do you confess that Jesus Christ (God) is come in the flesh?

Ruth was justified by works ...

Elaborate please.

 

[Heyzeus]

Jesus intended that to be a high bar that was even unreachable...too high to be able to surmount...for the Pharisees and scribes of Jesus' day were impeccably righteous outwardly (see Philippians 3:1-9).



Really?

Jesus hates no one...for He is God...and God is love (1 John 4:8, 1 John 4:16)



At the Spirit-filled Bible College we used to joke and call it "cemetery".



Sounds like gnosticism to me. You have just been identified as a false teacher, if you cannot answer the following question (correctly).

Do you confess that Jesus Christ (God) is come in the flesh?



Elaborate please.

You don't know what Gnostism is ... and I have not really shared any of my personal beliefs .. other than the Golden Rule.

But if you want to call that Gnostism .. It is what it is .. once again you revert to avoidance tactics and fallacious Ad Hom gibberish - drifting interestingly into "demonization of the other" ... hmmmm) in a desperate attempt to hide from the Truth .. but do carry on :)

 

[Heyzeus]

look it up and see yourself in the mirror

OK so .. you made the accusation .. now you back that accusation up by at least quoting what in my post you think is Sabellianism ..

but more importantly .. state why this doctrine is wrong ? rather than sending others to do your homework for you.

 

[justbyfaith]

You don't know what Gnostism is ... and I have not really shared any of my personal beliefs .. other than the Golden Rule.

But if you want to call that Gnostism .. It is what it is .. once again you revert to avoidance tactics and fallacious Ad Hom gibberish - drifting interestingly into "demonization of the other" ... hmmmm) in a desperate attempt to hide from the Truth .. but do carry on :)

I would just say to you that the subject is now changing to the concept of whether or not Jesus Christ (God) is come in the flesh.

I would point you to 1 John 1:1, 1 John 4:1-3, 2 John 1:7, Matthew 14:31, Luke 24:42-43, and Matthew 26:29.

And there is no hiding from the truth on my part...for gnosticism is an obvious lie.

 

[justbyfaith]

You don't know what Gnostism is ... and I have not really shared any of my personal beliefs

You have shared that you believe in emanations of God....that is gnosticism.

 

[Renniks]

While this question is not addressed to me, it should be clear that since Jesus Himself is Eternal Life, believing on Him = Eternal Security.

Jesus said unto her, I am The Resurrection, and The Life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? (John 11:25,26)

There are numerous passages in the NT which speak of the eternal security of the believer. It should not even be debatable, but it is.

I agree. The key word is believer. Not ex believer.

 

[ChristisGod]

You have shared that you believe in emanations of God....that is gnosticism.

Indeed it is !

 

[Renniks]

may be necessary at some point...as it might be the only way that you can keep your helmet (of salvation) firmly placed on your head in the time of battle...which may be a critical aspect for your victory in the battle

Which implys you can fail and fall away. Contradiction... can't both be true.

 

[Heyzeus]

I would just say to you that the subject is now changing to the concept of whether or not Jesus Christ (God) is come in the flesh.

I would point you to 1 John 1:1, 1 John 4:1-3, 2 John 1:7, Matthew 14:31, Luke 24:42-43, and Matthew 26:29.

Sure .. .. might as well as you won't address the Jesus of Matt/Mark.

What would you like to say about it.. The Logos .. the word made Flesh. Uncle John was wanting to make Christianity more appealing so he used terminology the people were familiar with... the "Emissary between Man and God" .. a concept similar to Gnostic thinking .. but this was not Gnostism ..

In any case .. Jesus spoke God's word through the Holy spirit - Jesus was the human embodiment of the word .. the word made flesh so to speak .. as per the description of both John and Jesus .. although there are differences in the nature of Christs divinity depending on whether we are talking the Jesus of the Synoptics .. or the Jesus of John.

But this is Johns description - but no .. this does not mean Jesus was God - The Father .. and no one at the time took it to mean that .. nor did the early Church Fathers.

If all you had was the first page of Mark .. and the first page of Job ... who is Jesus :) and who is Satan :) ...

Jesus is not "God come in the Flesh" in Mark .. If that was the case .. Satan would have acted differently .. certainly more respectfully and deferentially .. like in Job .. not exceeding the will of his Father .. acting only as his Father allowed.

Satan would have recognized "Daddy"

 

[justbyfaith]

Sure .. .. might as well as you won't address the Jesus of Matt/Mark.

What would you like to say about it.. The Logos .. the word made Flesh. Uncle John was wanting to make Christianity more appealing so he used terminology the people were familiar with... the "Emissary between Man and God" .. a concept similar to Gnostic thinking .. but this was not Gnostism ..

In any case .. Jesus spoke God's word through the Holy spirit - Jesus was the human embodiment of the word .. the word made flesh so to speak .. as per the description of both John and Jesus .. although there are differences in the nature of Christs divinity depending on whether we are talking the Jesus of the Synoptics .. or the Jesus of John.

But this is Johns description - but no .. this does not mean Jesus was God - The Father .. and no one at the time took it to mean that .. nor did the early Church Fathers.

If all you had was the first page of Mark .. and the first page of Job ... who is Jesus :) and who is Satan :) ...

Jesus is not "God come in the Flesh" in Mark .. If that was the case .. Satan would have acted differently .. certainly more respectfully and deferentially .. like in Job .. not exceeding the will of his Father .. acting only as his Father allowed.

Satan would have recognized "Daddy"

So that is a "no" on whether you confess that Jesus Christ (God) is come in the flesh.

This identifies you as a false teacher; and for the most part my response to you from now on will be according to Romans 16:17...unless I see you deceiving a member of the body of Christ and something I say can prevent that from happening.

Rom 16:17, Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

 

[justbyfaith]

Which implys you can fail and fall away. Contradiction... can't both be true.

Most certainly there are steps that need to be taken in order to have eternal security; which if taken, will guarantee that security. One of those steps is to stay fully armored up...

And the helmet (of the hope of salvation) is a major aspect of that armor...which the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints certainly helps to provide that piece of the armor.

 

[Heyzeus]

You have shared that you believe in emanations of God....that is gnosticism.

I did not say that I necessarily believed in this - I presented it as a perspective that could be taken .. but why not ? .. and Gnostism is not the only religion that looked at this perspective .. many alternatives .. none which you have even considered .. but dismiss out of hand

Labels don't concern me .. nor does Gnostism .. When you go on your next vacation .. what would you wish it to be ?

 

[Heyzeus]

So that is a "no" on whether you confess that Jesus Christ (God) is come in the flesh.

This identifies you as a false teacher; and for the most part my response to you from now on will be according to Romans 16:17...unless I see you deceiving a member of the body of Christ and something I say can prevent that from happening.

What do you mean "God Come in the Flesh" .. as in Modern Trinity Doctrine interpretation .. absolutely not...

but I am glad we are going down this road .. as it leads again to the path you wish not to go .. back to the first page of the NT Bible - and one page from Job.

So if we agree with your claim - and put God into the Story .. So God then hangs out on the earth until 30 .. gets baptized .. calls himself on the phone basically .. has a pretend version of himself call down and say "thou art my son whom I am Proud"

barely plausible but OK. but it gets harder. Now God goes for Testing .. huh ?? .. starting to have trouble passing the giggle test at this point but .. OK .. God wants to perform standard human ritual for this kind of thing .. and the general rules are followed .

but .. then God meets Satan ... one of the "Sons of God" on the Road .. and next thing you know Satan is asking Daddy to bow down to him...

Sure ... that makes all the sense in the world .. specially if you had this story ... and nothing else but Job 1 .. one page.

Lets make an animated video of that one for shts and giggles shall we ... as your foundation crumbles round..

God don't make no sense in the story .. no how . and none of the people at the time thought what you are claiming .. not the disciples..not Jesus .. don't make no sense in all of Matt/Mark ... which is all the Church of Jerusalem Christians had as adopted written scripture .. until 100-120 BC sans a few other possibilities such as James.

Nothing of significance in the Church takes the doctrine you are in love with seriously until 200 AD - when it is thought of as heretical but at least we know it existed. Takes another 125 years to become official doctrine .. by edict of a Pagan Emperor for Political Purposes .. a fellow who then usurps the position of "The Logos" ..

Takes another 500 years of killing other Christians after that to get rid of conflicting doctrine .. but .. someone had to win the doctrinal war .. and that side won the war was that side .. on which the 1000 years of horror was predicated .. but I digress .

Rome was Arian until what date .. ?? least till 700AD

but OK ... you claim to know better than those Christians that fought this doctrine for 700 years .. but can't seem to support your claim.

 

[justbyfaith]

To those who are reading this thread I would submit posts #1-#6 of the following thread:

True Trinity.

 

[Enoch111]

The debate is if you do not follow you have not believed.

That is a given. Those who genuinely believe on the Lord Jesus Christ surrender their lives to Him. Which means obedience to God and Christ.

 

[FollowHim]

That is a given. Those who genuinely believe on the Lord Jesus Christ surrender their lives to Him. Which means obedience to God and Christ.

I truly thought this was understood by all until I met a group who 100% rejected this and called those who held following was conditional, anti Christ.

A form of dispensational view put under the law up to a time through acts and a time of grace thereafter.

My life experience is openness and honesty, being broken, through heart felt failure and need, then beauty is born, transformation begins, resurrection to life. God bless you

It is why David had his Bathsheba experience, no height too high from which to fall, yet he was restored.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Well, at least you are the first OSAS advocate to actually challenge my point by point exegesis of Revelation and Hebrews. Unfortunately, all the academic commentaries disagree with you!

I feel honored. Did you think I cared what commentaries say?

The 7 letters address the entire church of each city. The church of Smyrna in general is addressed as a spiritually dead church (3:1). Jesus' threat and repentance demand are intended to remedy the situation, so that the church as a whole can shed their "soiled" garments, replace them with "white robes," and "conquer" too. In 3:5 the Greek "ho nikon" is rightly translated "whoever conquers" or "if you conquer" (NRSV) and the Greek "houtos" ("thus" or "like them") expands the chance to conquer to include the entire church:

"If you [the church as a whole] conquer, you will be clothed like them [the "few" with unsoiled garments] in white robes, and I will not blot your name out of the Book of Life (3:5)."

3:5 assumes that the church as a whole is saved and has its names already written in the Book of Life. So the promise not to blot the names out is contingent upon their compliance and obedience. Your ignorance of Greek prevents you from seeing what all the academic commentaries on just the Book of Revelation see.

My refutation of your misunderstanding of Hebrews will follow.

Knowing the Greek is helpful, yes. But a proper exegesis also depends on "getting the big picture." Your interpretation suffers from confirmation bias, causing you to force the Greek to say what you want to hear, inserting ideas that aren't present, seemingly unaware of the basic structure of the passage.

You admit that "ho nikon" is rightly translated "whoever conquers", which in your mind is a conditional statement. However, once the structure of the passage is understood, we see that Jesus is making a declarative statement instead. The passage is a comparison and contrast between two groups, not the church as a whole as you suggest. Jesus divides the church of Sardis into two groups: those who have incomplete deeds; and those who have not soiled their garments. Of those who have incomplete deeds he says, "strengthen the things that remain." And of those who have not soiled their garments he says, "they will walk with me in white."

Your argument suffers from the lack of counterfactuals. There is nothing in the text suggesting that some who have not soiled their garments, will eventually do so. Jesus' declarative statement about those who have not soiled their garments, is further emphasized in verse 5.

Compare verses 4 and 5:

verse 4 they will walk with Me in white
verse 5 He who overcomes will thus be clothed in white

Verse 5 is not hypothetical, theoretical, or conditional. Verse 5 is a declarative meant to add emphasis and clarity to verse 4.

In fact, rather than supporting your view, this passage refutes it, since Jesus expresses the inevitable when he says of them "they WILL" walk with me in white.