Rom 8:30

[Brother Adam]

Okay, I need to come up with a solid explaination to show that Romans 8:30 does not lend itself to OSAS theology. Help needed.

[Brother Adam]

I've been browsing the net for a while here and looking up some theology texts on the subject and at first seemed to come up bankrupt when it dawned on me to try to explore the passage to see if it really says anything about an assurance of the inheritance of eternal life (which is what osas is really saying). While I'm looking for a better explanation, basically the passage does not really prove anything about a full assurance of salvation. All it says is that God knows already the free decisions that we will make, and because we don't believe in double-predestination (that we are not truly free), to understand the passage correctly we have to understand that election does not cast free will aside. God does not elect a person at the moment of their salvation, but already knows the final decision a person will make in their life regarding final salvation.

Really it seems to me that this passage reveals an order of salvation, but does not in any way conflict with the passage that we "may have the full assurance of the HOPE of our salvation" nor that our fruits in life play a role in our justification because our salvation [total liberation from all evil and temptation by receiving our inheritance in heaven]. Romans itself opens and closes with appeals to obedience, Christ specifically says over and over again that we must be obedient and carry our crosses, and that even believers will be judged based on works (because it is not by faith alone that we are saved). Precisely because our works are redeemed through Christ are they meritorious through Christ. "It is not I, but Christ in me". Our works through Christ are united up with the sufferings of Christ and offered to God in heaven. I don't see how OSAS theology can get over this biblical passage.

In the end, as you noted, scripture does not contradict itself. Romans 8 does not lend itself to proving OSAS because within the context of salvation history, it has nothing to do with OSAS, a concept in itself not seen until 1600 years after Paul's discourse. The Bible in the long run does not give any kind of impression that we no longer have free will after we are adopted as children of God and liberated from the bonds of original sin.

Initial salvation through baptism gives us the free gift of adopted sonship, something won by Christ on the cross. However, this does not trump our ability, as history itself attests too, to say no to God at any given time through sin. It's a nice thought at first to think that "Oh, Jane's accepted Christ therefore she is incapable of ever rejecting Christ". To say this though rejects Jane's free will.

Edited April 28, 2005 by Brother Adam

[point5]

ive always liked this page...but Im not sure it hit on your verse...it might hit on the same themes your verse does.

[url="http://web.archive.org/web/20031204122857/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ519.HTM"]This site![/url]

[Dave]

Adam, somewhere in the reference section here in the phorum there's a link to an essay entitled "Rescuing Rome from the Reformers."

Edited April 28, 2005 by Dave

[Guest Eremite]

Look at what it says in the previous verse:

"For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son"

Now, obviously, "foreknew" can mean a few things. But in the context it is used, it suggests a condition for "predestination". Those whom god "foreknows" are the ones he predestines. In what sense does God "foreknow" us? Obviously, he is not referring to the foreknowledge of our existence, since every man exists, and God foreknows it for all men. (And the verse is obviously limiting predestination to some, not all)

It seems to me that St. Paul is referring to those whom God "foreknows" will cooperate with his grace. It is these souls whom he predestines for eternal glory, because he takes into account the act of free will they will exercise in response to his grace. The Lord says in St. John's Gospel, "I will draw all men to myself". But not all men will in fact come to him, because he foreknows their choices, and will design his providence in accordance with it.

There are too many contrary examples in the New Testament to understand references to "predestination" as once saved always saved. For example, Hebrews 4 reads:

[quote]1 Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest remains, let us fear lest any of you be judged to have failed to reach it. 2 For good news came to us just as to them; but the message which they heard did not benefit them, because it did not meet with faith in the hearers. For we who have believed enter that rest, as he has said, "As I swore in my wrath, `They shall never enter my rest,'" although his works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For he has somewhere spoken of the seventh day in this way, "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works." 5 And again in this place he said, "They shall never enter my rest."

6 Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 again he sets a certain day, "Today," saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, "Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts." 8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later of another day. 9 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God; 10 for whoever enters God's rest also ceases from his labors as God did from his.

11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience. 12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do.[/quote]

Note that St. Paul says the "promise" of eternal rest is there, but Christians can "fail to reach it". This is because God designs his providence with the foreknowledge of our free will choices, as explained above.

[Guest]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Apr 28 2005, 02:41 PM'] Look at what it says in the previous verse:

"For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son"

Now, obviously, "foreknew" can mean a few things. But in the context it is used, it suggests a condition for "predestination". Those whom god "foreknows" are the ones he predestines. In what sense does God "foreknow" us? Obviously, he is not referring to the foreknowledge of our existence, since every man exists, and God foreknows it for all men. (And the verse is obviously limiting predestination to some, not all)

It seems to me that St. Paul is referring to those whom God "foreknows" will cooperate with his grace. It is these souls whom he predestines for eternal glory, because he takes into account the act of free will they will exercise in response to his grace. The Lord says in St. John's Gospel, "I will draw all men to myself". But not all men will in fact come to him, because he foreknows their choices, and will design his providence in accordance with it.

There are too many contrary examples in the New Testament to understand references to "predestination" as once saved always saved. For example, Hebrews 4 reads:



Note that St. Paul says the "promise" of eternal rest is there, but Christians can "fail to reach it". This is because God designs his providence with the foreknowledge of our free will choices, as explained above. [/quote]
nice stuff bro

[Briguy]

Adam, try as I may I could not come up with an argument against OSAS, in reference to the verse. I tried, sorry about that. (he he)

-Brian

27] And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
[28] And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
[29] For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
[30] Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
[31] What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
[32] He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
[33] Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
[34] Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
[35] Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
[36] As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
[37] Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
[38] For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
[39] Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

[Brother Adam]

"And Judas hung himself"

Try as I may, I could not come up with a single argument against the Trinity in this verse. But I tried.

Like we noted, Romans 8 has nothing to do with OSAS. Not only is OSAS non-biblical it can be argued strongly that it is anti-biblical.

I was sitting in mass today with a former independant fundamental baptist pastor who mentioned that 9 out of 10 sermons in fundamental churches do not ever touch on the Gospels. He mentioned that they didn't sound "Baptist enough" meaning that there was nothing in the gospels that could be used to help support his own interpretation of theology.

But that is what is so beautiful about 2 Peter 1:20-21

[Briguy]

Adam, as I have said before, I can't comment on being Baptist because I am not Baptist, I simply go to a non-denominational church and am a Christian, bought by Jesus for a price. The price He paid was his very blood and I am eternally grateful for that.

The verses in 2nd Peter, are a warning to believers about Jesus-less teachers teaching salvation could come without Christ. It is not some kind of endorcement for not trusting ourselves to read scripture and understand it. That would be contrary to other scripture which tells us to search the scriptures and meditate on God's word. Lets take a logical example. A group of castaways are on a desserted island. On that island they find a Bible, left by other castaways. The group can read the Bible, get saved and live a Christian life, all without any "authoritative" persons interpretation of the Bible. You are saying that correct interpretation is impossible without a Papacy or Mag. You have to look at what Peter is saying and his audience.

On OSAS and the Bible, here is a few verses you may not have looked at from a OSAS perspective: From Hebrews 6 (NASB)

17In the same way God, desiring even more to show to (AI)the heirs of the promise (AJ)the unchangeableness of His purpose, interposed with an oath,

18so that by two unchangeable things in which (AK)it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of (AL)the hope set before us.

19This (AM)hope we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and steadfast and one which (AN)enters within the veil,

20(AO)where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a (AP)high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

Adam, look at verse 17 in particular. That phrase "anchor of the soul" is so comforting. An anchor is what holds the ship from drifting away. The ship may get battered and beat up but no matter the storm the ship is secure with the anchor. That is the image here. Jesus as an anchor that will not let the soul of the believer go. Anchors serve a purpose and Jesus serves that purpose for us (and much much more). Now look at the end of the verse. When Jesus came he entered the veil, or the "Holy of Holies" for us so that there was no longer a veil between us and God, once you have that relationship with God the veil is gone and there is no way to go back through what now does not exist. You cannot belong to God and then not belong to God, because the veil has been removed by Jesus and sacrificing for Sin has been completed once for all. Adam, please ponder that with an open mind and heart. Looking forward to your response.

In Christian Love,
Brian

[guardsman]

[quote name='Briguy' date='May 3 2005, 08:00 AM']  You have to look at what Peter is saying and his audience.

That phrase "anchor of the soul" is so comforting. An anchor is what holds the ship from drifting away. The ship may get battered and beat up but no matter the storm the ship is secure with the anchor. That is the image here. Jesus as an anchor that will not let the soul of the believer go.

[/quote]
You're absolutely correct when you say you have to look at what Peter is saying and his audience. His audience was not able to read the New Testament and figure it out for themselves. It did not exist yet. Peter was their "Magisterium." As far as the phrase "anchor of the soul", you're right, it is a comforting image. You've got the Jesus as Saviour part down, and that's good. But remember, Jesus is our LORD and Saviour. We must not forget the Lord part, which requires our OBEDIENCE. Once saved, always saved sounds great, but I don't think it is helpful to the many souls who have fallen victim to the belief that they can sign a Bible tract and accept Jesus as their Saviour, and then never understand that He is our Lord and JUDGE as well. And although many people may claim Jesus as their Lord, He will tell many of us He never knew us.

[Briguy]

Guardsman, that was a very nice and fair post. You are right that many will get before Jesus and He will cast them away and say He never knew them. There are those who go forward and say that they have accepted Christ and have not. Now, how many more as infants have had the waters of baptism sprinkled on them and have nothing to do with God at all now, maybe even only going to church a couple times a year since their Baptism. The fact is true faith is what saves. The faith spoke of in Hebrews and the people of faith in Hebrews 11. True saving faith saves forever. Once Jesus is the anchor He hold for ever. Please see that picture in the right way because it is so important. We are not the anchor of our faith. If we were we would fail and come loose and our faith would drift away and be lost. That goes for every one of us. The truth is and the image that Peter shares is that Jesus is the anchor of our faith. You see, once we have faith Jesus becomes the anchor of our faith and of our souls. He is perfect and cannot come loose. On the outside we may show signs of wear and tear but The Anchor holds. We may doubt at times, but The Anchor holds. We may lose sight of our works for a season, but The Anchor holds, We may even have a period when we are disobiedient, even to the ONE who boutght us, but The Anchor holds. Jesus is our anchor and The Anchor holds, for it(HE) can do nothing but hold.

Again, thanks for your post. I 'll let you reply to what I just said before I continue.

In Christ,
Brian

[guardsman]

[quote name='Briguy' date='May 4 2005, 08:08 AM']True saving faith saves forever. [/quote]
Don't get me wrong, I agree with that statement completely. But I have heard of many formerly "saved" Christians who have changed their minds, and have either become atheists or in some other way denied Jesus. One such person was a devout fundamentalist preacher who taught "once saved, always saved." He now says Jesus was just a great teacher. Is he still saved? I don't know, I'm not the judge, but to me it flies in the face of OSAS. The problem is that we must continually strive to practice our faith so that we can be assured that it is, indeed, a true saving faith. OSAS, to me, is problematic in that many people may take it to mean something different than what it does. It's easy to always argue that if someone falls away from the Church, then they never truly had saving faith in the first place. So they didn't lose their salvation, because they never really had the faith required for salvation. That's a simple argument, but not at all helpful in saving souls. Better to practice your faith, confess your sins, and partake of The Lord's Supper, and forget about OSAS. If we live our lives in a Christian manner and practice our faith, that's all the assurance of salvation we need. OSAS seems like an innovation to me, and one that wasn't needed. It just confuses people and pulls us away from many truths that the Church has taught all along.

[thessalonian]

So brian,

What do you do when the pastor get's up before the congregation and says something like:

Brothers in Christ I remind you that you recieved the Gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved, if you hold it fast -- unless you believed in vain. I caution you not to fall away from grace. I exort you to continue in the faith.

Would you

a) Do a crossword puzzle.
b) Look for another Church the next weekend.
c) Wonder if he had ever read John 3:16.
d) Sit up in your chair and take heed.
e) fall asleep, figuring he was talking to those who think they were saved but really aren't.

I am also curious as to how many times Peter would have had to call Jesus bluff and deny him before Jesus would follow up on his own words.

Matt.10
[32] So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven;
[33] but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.

Personally I think Peter had a fall from grace and needed to be restored. What do you think?

Blessings

[Brother Adam]

The act of faith saves because it calls us to obedience. God reaches out to man, man in turn responds to God. Faith in Christ leads to the covenantal rebirth into the family of God as adopted children. The initial act of faith is metanioa (repentance and coversion) followed by covenantal obedience in baptism in which man is reborn, adopted into the family of God through the merits of Jesus Christ. A simple prayer cannot bring a heavenly inheritance. Prayer does not save initially or finally. Faith in God and obedience to Him does. After rebirth man is healed of the severed relationship caused by original sin and any actual sin commited before baptism. After being liberated (saved) from evil through adoption, man is called to work out his salvation in fear and trembling through the grace of God, and is nourished through the sacraments. Works verify faith and faith cannot be true faith without works, so works are necessary for salvation. A dependance on works as strict merit to earn salvation is heresy, salvation cannot be earned or stictly merited. However, grace is to be cooperated with and is the free choice of man to choose to accept or reject his salvation at any time he chooses. By freely rejecting God and his salvation after rebirth man can freely choose to sever himself from his eternal inheritance, but not from the indelible mark on his soul from his baptism. He remains liberated from original sin and adopted as a child of God, but freely chooses as the prodigal son has choosen. God's grace always allows man to return to Him though, and any man who chooses to repent and turn back to God is accepted freely with open arms. Final salvation (or final liberation from sin takes place after death in an immeadiate particular judgement where those who have died in a state fo grace will go to heaven and those who die in a state of unregeneration or mortal sin will go to hell.

God of course foreknows those who will be saved by their own free choice, but free choice always remains. If man at any point is removed from free choice we become determanilists in a way stating that man is no longer responsible for his actions, a direct anti-thesis of Aquinas' arguments on the freedom and dignity of the human person. A man who no longer has free will after salvation no longer has dignity and would act as unwilling slave instead of as free servant.

(Directly relavent: Mt 7:21, Mt 24:13, Rom 11:22, Phil 2:12, 1 Cor 9:27, 1 Cor 10:11-12, Gal 5:4, 2 Tim 2:11-13, Hb 6:4-6, Hb 10:26-27, Jn 3:5,22 , Tit 3:5, Acts 2:37-38, Acts 22:16, Rom 6:4, 1 Pet 3:21, Heb 10:22, Js 2:24, Js 2:26, Gal 5:6, 1 Cor 13:2, Jn 14:15, Mt 19:16, Rom 8:24, Eph 2:5,8 , 2: Tim 1:9, Phil 2:12, 1 pet 1:9, Mt 10:22, Mt 24:13, Rom 2:2-8)

©Adam Janke, 2005

[guardsman]

What Brother Adam just said. Awesome.