Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Paul Never Says Believers Have Been Saved . . .


consiglieri

Recommended Posts

I can at least appreciate the OSAS concept if you consider a individual that has accepted Christ, repented of his sins, and dies but right before he dies in a car accident yells an obscenity. Since no unclean thing can enter the Kingdom of God is the individual cut off from God because of that last sin? I think the OSAS concept answers this.

Is that right EV's?

The fact that he is alive and mortal at all when proclaiming such an obscenity shows that he is not saved.

Link to comment

First off, if Joe keeps jumping into the river its because Joe is an idiot...

as for OSAS, the heresy lies in the Easy Believeism that is being taught in so many shallow churches.

Salvation is God's changing us and freeing us from sin.

Too many churches are teaching that salvation is the magic genie prayer of "dear jesus please come into my heart". Now they think they are saved, but there is no change in their life but they are constantly told not to worry that they have been saved and saved for all time.

salvation is of God from beginning to end. He saves us, keeps us, sanctifies us and glorifies us.

magic genie praying is of men and must be addressed and rebuked by the modern EV church

Link to comment

One of my favorite passages, dubbed the "golden chain of salvation" by many:

Romans 8:28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Notice the past tense in this passage. God is the one who is in complete control of the process of salvation here, folks. He predestines, He calls, He justifies, He glorifies. They are all inter-dependent and God is the one at work in this process. Sure, we participate with Him, but it is only by His grace and gift of faith that we are even able to do so. Last time I checked, no one has been glorified, yet it speaks of this as a done deal in the past tense for those who are God's chosen people. The people that God has elected for salvation are guaranteed salvation, sanfictification and then glorification.

Later on, we read that nothing can thwart this process:

Romans 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33 Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; 34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. 35 Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 Just as it is written, "FOR YOUR SAKE WE ARE BEING PUT TO DEATH ALL DAY LONG; WE WERE CONSIDERED AS SHEEP TO BE SLAUGHTERED." 37 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Cheers,

AZBeliever

Link to comment
The fact that he is alive and mortal at all when proclaiming such an obscenity shows that he is not saved.

Thank you for making my point about the dangers of being out of balance in our thinking about salvation (in this case ignoring the past tense). Do you honestly believe that if you die with an unconfessed sin on your conscience, you die without salvation?

I simply look at the Lexicon which has it as an ongoing process not finished until after death.

I agree, it is a whole process, with a beginning (in the past), a middle (in the present) and an end (after death, in the future). But unless you accept that there is indeed a past tense to salvation, all this talk of "process" is utterly meaningless. And I also agree that many Christians don't think too deeply about the issue. But I would disagree that OSAS is the default mode for most evangelicals or mainstream Christians, especially those who are serious about their faith and relationship with God.

Take care, everyone :P

Link to comment

Thank you for making my point about the dangers of being out of balance in our thinking about salvation (in this case ignoring the past tense). Do you honestly believe that if you die with an unconfessed sin on your conscience, you die without salvation?

I know this BC's question but I say no. Thats why I really don't have an issue with OSAS unless its taken to the extreme.

Link to comment

Although the title of this thread sounds like a blow at evangelical soteriology, it is not my invention, but is rather a statement from The Oxford Bible Commentary on Paul's 1st epistle to the Corinthians.

Specifically, it deals with 1 Corinthians 1:18, which in the KJV says that the preaching of the cross is to them that perish, foolishness, but to them that are saved, the power of God.

The NRSV changes that to read, "but to them that are being saved." (Note that the New International Version also follows this reading.)

The full quote from the Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 1112 is as follows, emphasis in original:

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Yeah, my thought is, Paul wrote more than just 1 Corinthians. Paul wrote to Titus and said, "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). Saved in this verse is an Aorist Active Indicative verb, which typically denotes a constantive or punctiliar action, meaning that the whole of the action of salvation has occurred. Your allusion to 1 Cor. 1:18 (in which we're speaking of a participle, and not a regular verb) would be consistent with the idea that even though salvation has already occurred, the sanctifying aspects of salvation, whereby the holiness of the believer is gradually perfected, has not yet occurred, and hence the saint is "being" saved in that respect. And I think if one were to quote the whole of what the Oxford Bible Commentary has to say on the subject, it would somewhere along the line make reference to that fact, meaning ultimately that you have not presented a "blow" to Evangelical soteriology.

Link to comment
I know this BC's question but I say no. Thats why I really don't have an issue with OSAS unless its taken to the extreme.

I agree. I think that there are two ways in which most people understand OSAS. One way is that, "since we are already saved and nothing can change that, let's do what we want!" I think this is what LDS find objectionable, seeing as how this precise line of thinking is explicitly rejected by Paul ("shall we go on sinning that grace may increase? By no means!"). The second way to understand it is with a view to the unbelieveable, incredible grace and mercy of God on us sinful human beings. Indeed, I think one can make the case that Paul rejects the first OSAS position on the grounds of what God has already done in the believer's life, in the past. "You have been set free from the law of sin and death, don't live like that any more!" Or, "The old man has been crucified with Christ, now we live in Christ, so live like it!" Language like this is scattered throughout Paul's epistles.

The second way of understanding OSAS means that we are grateful beyond measure to the God Who has saved us, works in us, and will glorify us in the end. The response is not willful sin and license, but humility, worship and devoted service, realizing that it is God Who has done it, not our own efforts, remembering that we have been bought with a price, and we no longer belong to ourselves, but to God. I think this way of thinking about OSAS is worthy and biblical. I'm not sure if I believe in OSAS, but I do believe that salvation is not something that can be picked up and dropped and picked up and dropped so easily as BC seems to claim. Indeed, I think if one can lose their salvation, it is lost for good (Hebrews 6). So swearing right before death certainly is not going to do it. Is God's grace and mercy so powerless, so fickle?

Take care, everyone :P

Link to comment

I don't. I think when we repent and do as the Lord asks, we are in a saved state. If a person dies while in that state, they don't have anything to worry about. My major objection is the "once saved, always saved." If Joe is in a river and he starts drowning and is pulled out of the river by Jack, Joe has been "saved" both in the present tense when the rescue occurs and in the past tense as days and weeks pass. However, if Joe decided to jump back in the river, he runs the risk of drowning again. Thus whatever work that Jack did for Joe when he saved him earlier has pretty much gone to waste. I love the scripture that says "I the Lord and bound when ye do what I say. When ye do not what I say, ye have no promise." This is very true in the salvation process. LDS can always know where they stand before God simply by self evaluation. God does not ask the impossible from us. He knows our abilitites and we basically know them to.

Very well put. I like the analogy. Very appropriate.

Link to comment

Yeah, my thought is, Paul wrote more than just 1 Corinthians. Paul wrote to Titus and said, "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). Saved in this verse is an Aorist Active Indicative verb, which typically denotes a constantive or punctiliar action, meaning that the whole of the action of salvation has occurred. Your allusion to 1 Cor. 1:18 (in which we're speaking of a participle, and not a regular verb) would be consistent with the idea that even though salvation has already occurred, the sanctifying aspects of salvation, whereby the holiness of the believer is gradually perfected, has not yet occurred, and hence the saint is "being" saved in that respect. And I think if one were to quote the whole of what the Oxford Bible Commentary has to say on the subject, it would somewhere along the line make reference to that fact, meaning ultimately that you have not presented a "blow" to Evangelical soteriology.

I dont think the OP was trying to present a "blow" to Evangelic soteriology.

Link to comment

Yeah, my thought is, Paul wrote more than just 1 Corinthians. Paul wrote to Titus and said, "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). Saved in this verse is an Aorist Active Indicative verb, which typically denotes a constantive or punctiliar action, meaning that the whole of the action of salvation has occurred. Your allusion to 1 Cor. 1:18 (in which we're speaking of a participle, and not a regular verb) would be consistent with the idea that even though salvation has already occurred, the sanctifying aspects of salvation, whereby the holiness of the believer is gradually perfected, has not yet occurred, and hence the saint is "being" saved in that respect. And I think if one were to quote the whole of what the Oxford Bible Commentary has to say on the subject, it would somewhere along the line make reference to that fact, meaning ultimately that you have not presented a "blow" to Evangelical soteriology.

As with Ephesians, most New Testament scholars would agree that Paul did not write Titus, either.

Where does that leave you?

And if you insist against the scholarly consensus that Paul wrote both 1 Corinthians as well as Titus, where does that leave you? With Paul arguing against Paul?

Please note that 1 Corinthians 10 is a strong argument by Paul against those in Corinth who felt that they were "spiritual," in that they had already attained salvation and they were free to act how they pleased. Paul says that this is not the case, and gives the example of the ancient Israelites under Moses as Exhibit A in his argument.

Paul is clear in 1 Corinthians--salvation is a process that is started in this life, but is not completed until at least this life is over. Don't forget his concern about even his own salvation:

1 Cor. 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

Clearly it is a real possibility to Paul that he might not be saved, but that he must endure to the end in righteousness in order to have salvation.

What do you say to that? And please no chasing around to other Bible books. Just deal with what Paul says here rather than jump to other epistles where you think Paul is saying something contradictory.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Link to comment

The second way of understanding OSAS means that we are grateful beyond measure to the God Who has saved us, works in us, and will glorify us in the end. The response is not willful sin and license, but humility, worship and devoted service, realizing that it is God Who has done it, not our own efforts, remembering that we have been bought with a price, and we no longer belong to ourselves, but to God. I think this way of thinking about OSAS is worthy and biblical. I'm not sure if I believe in OSAS, but I do believe that salvation is not something that can be picked up and dropped and picked up and dropped so easily as BC seems to claim. Indeed, I think if one can lose their salvation, it is lost for good (Hebrews 6). So swearing right before death certainly is not going to do it. Is God's grace and mercy so powerless, so fickle?

Take care, everyone :P

I find much to agree with in your posts, Rhino.

BUT if we are to say that OSAS means that if we do not respond in the "appropriate" manner to God's gift of salvation, and through an "inappropriate" response we lose that salvation once granted to us, then I see no reason to refer to that doctrine as OSAS.

If that is what you mean, then I see this way of thinking about OSAS as neither worthy nor biblical.

In the nicest possible way, of course.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Link to comment

As with Ephesians, most New Testament scholars would agree that Paul did not write Titus, either.

I always love the "most scholars" argument as a tool of rebuttal, because it doesn't mean anything. :P

Where does that leave you?

And if you insist against the scholarly consensus that Paul wrote both 1 Corinthians as well as Titus, where does that leave you? With Paul arguing against Paul?

No, because I've already explained myself above. Did you not read what I wrote?

Please note that 1 Corinthians 10 is a strong argument by Paul against those in Corinth who felt that they were "spiritual," in that they had already attained salvation and they were free to act how they pleased. Paul says that this is not the case, and gives the example of the ancient Israelites under Moses as Exhibit A in his argument.

Your "exhibit" is nonsensical, and is probably more driven by a legalistic agenda than an actual dealing with the text.

Paul is clear in 1 Corinthians--salvation is a process that is started in this life, but is not completed until at least this life is over. Don't forget his concern about even his own salvation:

That is not what Paul is saying, and Paul never espoused a works-based soteriology.

Clearly it is a real possibility to Paul that he might not be saved, but that he must endure to the end in righteousness in order to have salvation.

Paul never said any such thing, otherwise he wouldn't have written elsewhere rebutting the notion that keeping the Law was a necessity to attain salvation (see the letters to the Romans and Galatians).

What do you say to that? And please no chasing around to other Bible books. Just deal with what Paul says here rather than jump to other epistles where you think Paul is saying something contradictory.

Sorry, but in dealing with agenda driven arguments, rather exegetical ones, it is best to take the whole counsel of God into account, and not just isolated words or verbs, and assume that the propagandist is right because his artwork is so craftily spun.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Ditto.

Link to comment
BUT if we are to say that OSAS means that if we do not respond in the "appropriate" manner to God's gift of salvation, and through an "inappropriate" response we lose that salvation once granted to us, then I see no reason to refer to that doctrine as OSAS.

If that is what you mean, then I see this way of thinking about OSAS as neither worthy nor biblical.

That isn't what I meant, but I can see that jumbling my personal opinions with a more straightforward look at OSAS could be confusing. If I believed in OSAS, my response would be one of worship and devotion to the God Who has saved me and has promised me eternal life with Him. It would not be license and more sinning. It seems like you're saying that "if OSAS means that we can lose our salvation, then it isn't OSAS". Of course, OSAS rejects that idea. I'm just not sure that I do, personally. But I do believe that if salvation is lost, it cannot be regained. So this talk of being in a "saved" state one moment, and "unsaved" the next, the "saved" again, doesn't make sense to me at all.

Take care, everyone :P

Link to comment

That is not what Paul is saying, and Paul never espoused a works-based soteriology.

:P Huh?

Not according to his speech to King Agrippa.

Acts 26

15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.

16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

17 Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,

18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

19 Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision:

20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

or was he just trying to save his skin?

Link to comment

I always love the "most scholars" argument as a tool of rebuttal, because it doesn't mean anything. :P

No, because I've already explained myself above. Did you not read what I wrote?

Your "exhibit" is nonsensical, and is probably more driven by a legalistic agenda than an actual dealing with the text.

That is not what Paul is saying, and Paul never espoused a works-based soteriology.

Paul never said any such thing, otherwise he wouldn't have written elsewhere rebutting the notion that keeping the Law was a necessity to attain salvation (see the letters to the Romans and Galatians).

Sorry, but in dealing with agenda driven arguments, rather exegetical ones, it is best to take the whole counsel of God into account, and not just isolated words or verbs, and assume that the propagandist is right because his artwork is so craftily spun.

Ditto.

I guess then Paul is against James and John And Christ. Oh well what to do?

Link to comment

That isn't what I meant, but I can see that jumbling my personal opinions with a more straightforward look at OSAS could be confusing. If I believed in OSAS, my response would be one of worship and devotion to the God Who has saved me and has promised me eternal life with Him. It would not be license and more sinning. It seems like you're saying that "if OSAS means that we can lose our salvation, then it isn't OSAS". Of course, OSAS rejects that idea. I'm just not sure that I do, personally. But I do believe that if salvation is lost, it cannot be regained. So this talk of being in a "saved" state one moment, and "unsaved" the next, the "saved" again, doesn't make sense to me at all.

Take care, everyone :P

I think that there is so much theological baggage associated with the term "saved" that using it can actually get in the way of understanding Paul, or understanding each other.

I think that Paul teaches that we begin the process of ultimate salvation the moment that we believe in Jesus as Savior and Lord (and receive baptism per Galatians and Romans?), and that so long as we continue to worship him as Savior and Lord (with all that that means relating to how we live our lives; not just the words we say), we remain in that relationship.

But if we are to be fair to Paul and really try to understand Paul on his own terms, it seems he is clear that we have the power through how we conduct ourselves to sever that relationship and put ourselves outside the process of salvation, even though it was properly and successfully once begun through faith.

Is it possible that we can all agree on that?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for "Not holding my breath")

Link to comment

I think that there is so much theological baggage associated with the term "saved" that using it can actually get in the way of understanding Paul, or understanding each other.

I think that Paul teaches that we begin the process of ultimate salvation the moment that we believe in Jesus as Savior and Lord (and receive baptism per Galatians and Romans?), and that so long as we continue to worship him as Savior and Lord (with all that that means relating to how we live our lives; not just the words we say), we remain in that relationship.

But if we are to be fair to Paul and really try to understand Paul on his own terms, it seems he is clear that we have the power through how we conduct ourselves to sever that relationship and put ourselves outside the process of salvation, even though it was properly and successfully once begun through faith.

Is it possible that we can all agree on that?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for "Not holding my breath")

I apologize for jumping betwixt all of you high powered theologians. But the problem I have with the above is that to string your thought to its inevitable conclusion one must get to specifics. At what point do I put myself outside the process of salvation? And is it the same for everyone? Where is the checklist?

Link to comment
Huh?

Not according to his speech to King Agrippa.

I don't see anything in that passage about works earning salvation, Zak. Paul simply states a fact, that we should repent and turn to God, and do good works. No argument here! The passage you cited could just as easily fit into the schema of "since I am now saved by faith, I will do good works because I have been saved!"

Both the LDS and evangelical/mainstream Christian way of looking at things look the same on the outside, really. But where we differ is the internal aspects, and where salvation actually enters into the picture (before or after or during our good works). It is an important distinction, to be sure, but not one that Paul addresses before Agrippa.

Take care, everyone :P

Link to comment

One of my favorite passages, dubbed the "golden chain of salvation" by many:

Romans 8:28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. 29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30 and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.

Notice the past tense in this passage. God is the one who is in complete control of the process of salvation here, folks. He predestines, He calls, He justifies, He glorifies. They are all inter-dependent and God is the one at work in this process. Sure, we participate with Him, but it is only by His grace and gift of faith that we are even able to do so. Last time I checked, no one has been glorified, yet it speaks of this as a done deal in the past tense for those who are God's chosen people. The people that God has elected for salvation are guaranteed salvation, sanfictification and then glorification.

Later on, we read that nothing can thwart this process:

Romans 8:31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things? 33 Who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies; 34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. 35 Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 Just as it is written, "FOR YOUR SAKE WE ARE BEING PUT TO DEATH ALL DAY LONG; WE WERE CONSIDERED AS SHEEP TO BE SLAUGHTERED." 37 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Cheers,

AZBeliever

This could go right on the other thread entitle Wiki thinks Mormons are Christians. Here is an idea of predestination. It seems biblical. Does Paul D agree with this? IF not Why not. If that is the case is AZbeliever not Christian to you Paul??

Link to comment

I don't see anything in that passage about works earning salvation, Zak. Paul simply states a fact, that we should repent and turn to God, and do good works. No argument here! The passage you cited could just as easily fit into the schema of "since I am now saved by faith, I will do good works because I have been saved!"

Both the LDS and evangelical/mainstream Christian way of looking at things look the same on the outside, really. But where we differ is the internal aspects, and where salvation actually enters into the picture (before or after or during our good works). It is an important distinction, to be sure, but not one that Paul addresses before Agrippa.

Take care, everyone :P

In the end... Does it really matter?

The bottom line is if no works come you are considered a slothful servant and will be cast out. So then works do play a part in the process.

Notice what Paul says about the Jews... (Romans 9:32) Works they had but they lacked faith. Faith and works go hand in hand.

Link to comment
Paul never espoused a works-based soteriology

The soteriology of Paul and Christ must be one and the same else one of them is not a Christian. Christ explicitly says that good works are required for salvation in Matthew 25:32-46 and the NT proclaims the necessity of other things for salvation as well.

Link to comment
In the end... Does it really matter?

I was hoping someone would ask that. Yes, it absolutely positively definitely matters, for many reasons! I actually have to go to Latin right now, but let me just pop out a couple reasons. One is that works done in and of ourselves in order to merit salvation have a completely different character than those done in response to and in gratitude for salvation already received (albeit in an unfinished, but no less real, way). To whom does the glory go in the former, and to whom in the latter? The first points to me, since I did it. The second points to God, Who did it, and continues to work it out in my life.

Another reason is hope and peace. Resting in God's salvation already provided is a great foundation for doing good works. Otherwise one is simply working without knowing if it will all work in the end. Where's the hope in that? And I'm not saying "hope" in the sense of "I hope I get a bike for Christmas even though it may or may not happen." It's "hope" in the biblical sense, looking forward to a definitely-coming reality based on what God has already done in the past. Anyway, where's the peace in that perspective, the easy yoke and light burden?

There are other reasons, but those are two of the biggest that come to mind at this point. Take care, everyone :P

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...