Nope. Sigh again to advance the conversation.
The Case Against Eternal Security - NOSAS
- Thread starter Wrangler
- Start date
SteVen
Active member
Can you see yet that the two positions OSAS/NOSAS are both biblical and in conflict?
Biblical = we both supplied biblical support for our chosen position
In conflict = the two positions don't agree
'
O'Darby III
Active member
This is the very topic that inexplicably got me banned at CB. I dared to say that I could see a biblical basis for both positions but that I felt the non-OSAS position had far the stronger biblical, philosophical and logical support. I then dared to suggest that either position could have what I called "pathological" consequences - i.e., an OSAS believer living as though he had a permanent Get Out of Jail Free card in his pocket and a non-OSAS believer living in constant fear of falling away. My Get Out of Jail Free analogy sent someone called APAK, and apparently his cronies among the CB moderators, off the deep-end (even though the same obvious point is made in almost every non-OSAS discussion).
But forget all that. I don't care whether OSAS or non-OSAS is true because I really don't think either one is even vaguely true. I don't believe it's conceivable the actual source of all reality operates at this level of silliness. If he/she/it does, I am simply incapable of believing it and will live with the consequences. I believe the entire notions of "salvation" and "damnation" are nothing more than illustrations of very human, entirely non-divine thinking. Ditto for almost every other loaded "religious" term you can think of.
I don't live in fear AT ALL. I live in thankfulness, curiosity, fascination and an effort to do the best I can as my wisdom and intuition lead me. If this isn't good enough for the ultimate he/she/it, then I'll just accept the consequences. But I strongly believe it will be good enough and is, in fact, what earthly existence is all about.
I was recently struck by this quote from C. S. Lewis, of all people:
But forget all that. I don't care whether OSAS or non-OSAS is true because I really don't think either one is even vaguely true. I don't believe it's conceivable the actual source of all reality operates at this level of silliness. If he/she/it does, I am simply incapable of believing it and will live with the consequences. I believe the entire notions of "salvation" and "damnation" are nothing more than illustrations of very human, entirely non-divine thinking. Ditto for almost every other loaded "religious" term you can think of.
I don't live in fear AT ALL. I live in thankfulness, curiosity, fascination and an effort to do the best I can as my wisdom and intuition lead me. If this isn't good enough for the ultimate he/she/it, then I'll just accept the consequences. But I strongly believe it will be good enough and is, in fact, what earthly existence is all about.
I was recently struck by this quote from C. S. Lewis, of all people:
Heaven will solve our problems, but not, I think, by showing us subtle reconciliations between all our apparently contradictory notions. The notions will be knocked from under our feet. We shall see that there never was any problem.
And, more than once, that impression which I can't describe except by saying it's like the sound of a chuckle in the darkness. The sense that some shattering and disarming simplicity is the real answer.
Bingo, C.S.
SteVen
Active member
While reading this I realized that my position on OSAS is from the evangelical perspective.
As a Universalist I believe that essentially everyone is already saved due to the atonement of Christ. (paid in full for all)
Some realize this during this lifetime, the others in the afterlife.
We cannot by an act of our own will undo what only God could do in the first place.
Even in the case of Reprobation, it is God's choice, not ours. And his aim is to return the lost sheep to the fold.
He is, after all, the Good Shepherd. - SteVen
]
The_H_C
New member
Is that what the Bible says will happen, my friend? Even Jesus didn’t teach that. He spoke of ‘everlasting destruction.’ Which is what the Lake of Fire / Gehenna represents.
God doesn’t interfere with our choices. He doesn’t ‘make’ us or force us to do a thing…. He wants loyalty from our heart, genuine; not because we are conformed to.
Come on.
Protecting the innocent & those who are peaceable, isn’t revenge.
It’s justice. It’s what is right.
How did “revenge” get in this?!
Waiting on Him
Active member
Maybe there is some context missing that causes both to be in conflict with scripture?
SteVen
Active member
SteVen said:
What if God could reconcile ALL of creation? (physical and spiritual)
Would that not be an amazing triumph of grace?
And they are all in conflict.
We do read that EVERY knee will bow and EVERY tongue
will acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, in heaven and on earth
and under the earth. (in the realm of the dead)
Philippians 2:10-11 NIV
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
SteVen said:
I believe revenge is a sin. Something God would not do.
Many view God as being vengeful and angry.
I don't agree with that view.
The doctrine of eternal conscious torment
presents God as being vengeful and angry.
]
What if God could reconcile ALL of creation? (physical and spiritual)
Would that not be an amazing triumph of grace?
There are three biblical doctrines of the final judgement.
And they are all in conflict.
We do read that EVERY knee will bow and EVERY tongue
will acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, in heaven and on earth
and under the earth. (in the realm of the dead)
Philippians 2:10-11 NIV
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
SteVen said:
I believe revenge is a sin. Something God would not do.
Justice isn't revenge. (or shouldn't be)
Many view God as being vengeful and angry.
I don't agree with that view.
The doctrine of eternal conscious torment
presents God as being vengeful and angry.
]
Waiting on Him
Active member
What would you say people are being saved from?
O'Darby III
Active member
I probably wouldn't say they are being saved at all. I would be more inclined to use terms such as "schooled," "prepared," perhaps even "enlightened."
Waiting on Him
Active member
I’m not certain either but I do know this. Jesus being in total communion with the Father would have given him some insight to the future of the men that he was literally speaking to.
The historical record shows us that something very horrific happen in that age about thirty to forty years after his resurrection, in which his followers needed to be literally taken to a safe place.
Could it be that the entire concept of being saved only refers to the individuals that these words were spoken to there in that century?
Waiting on Him
Active member
I’m only 56 years old and I’ve already survived the end of the world at least seven times that I’m aware of?
O'Darby III
Active member
Jesus being in total communion with the Father is certainly a legitimate Christian belief, but whether it's true is impossible to say. If we accept that premise, then much flows from it. If we accept that premise and the premise that Jesus actually said and taught everything the NT reports him as saying and teaching, then we have a full-blown Christianity with relatively few gray areas. That's not me, but it is certainly a legitimate approach to Christianity.
Yes, the events that led to the destruction of the Second Temple were indeed horrific. Whether Jesus actually predicted them is again a matter of belief, because most scholars place the authorship of the first Gospel, Mark, right around 70 AD.
I just sat through a pretty lengthy study of Jewish history around the time of Jesus. The history of the 150 years preceding Jesus and the 100 or so years after his death is almost unbelievable - constant fighting and intrigue of every variety. I think most of us have a notion of a pretty stable Jewish society in which the Pharisees and Sadducees debated fine points of theology and Jesus just kind of appeared with his novel message. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just the history of the High Priesthood is enough to make your eyes pop out and make the history of the Papacy pale in comparison. Anyway, I would doubt that the concept of being saved was applicable only to those in the first century.
Bart Ehrman's thesis (and he's not alone) is that Jesus' message was not one of salvation at all. Jesus, like many Jews of the time, thought the end was coming in a matter of a few years. His apocalyptic message was to repent and get right with God NOW, before the end arrived. When he died a criminal's death and it was clear he was not the sort of political warrior king Messiah that all Jews (including his followers) had hoped for, the message had to be reinvented. Ehrman credits Paul with largely reinventing the message as one of sacrifice and salvation.
In my little theology, if I had to use the term salvation at all, I'd probably say Jesus' message saves people "from themselves" or perhaps "from the inevitable consequences of living in ignorance and sin."