Is God Truly All Powerful?

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Agape4Robin said:
What is the other possibility? :think:


Conditional vs unconditional eternal security. It is possible he was a believer, but has since renounced Christ and fallen away from the truth. OSAS makes sense in Calvinism's TULIP, but it does not make sense in light of relationship, freedom, love, etc. Just as God's grace can be resisted and not all are saved, Scripture warns about the possibility of apostasy for those who believe and revert back to a godless state or false religion (e.g. Heb. 6:4-6).

Robert Shank's "Life in the Son: A study of the doctrine of perseverance" exegetes the proof texts on both sides of the debate. He was a Southern Baptist, but found the biblical evidence contradicted his previous theology.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
godrulz said:
Conditional vs unconditional eternal security. It is possible he was a believer, but has since renounced Christ and fallen away from the truth. OSAS makes sense in Calvinism's TULIP, but it does not make sense in light of relationship, freedom, love, etc. Just as God's grace can be resisted and not all are saved, Scripture warns about the possibility of apostasy for those who believe and revert back to a godless state or false religion (e.g. Heb. 6:4-6).

Robert Shank's "Life in the Son: A study of the doctrine of perseverance" exegetes the proof texts on both sides of the debate. He was a Southern Baptist, but found the biblical evidence contradicted his previous theology.
Just a quick note to make sure that everyone knows (most of you know already) that I do not believe that one's salvation is secure because of anything that even remotely resembles Calvinist doctrine or the TULIP. If anyone is curious, I'll happily explain why I do believe what I believe but for now, I want to wait and see what lighthouse comes up with first.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Caledvwlch

New member
Clete said:
Just a quick note to make sure that everyone knows (most of you know already) that I do not believe that one's salvation is secure because of anything that even remotely resembles Calvinist doctrine or the TULIP. If anyone is curious, I'll happily explain why I do believe what I believe but for now, I want to wait and see what lighthouse comes up with first.

Resting in Him,
Clete
I'll take some of that action... And by the way, what's OSAS?
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Clete said:
Um, when were you planning on showing it?

I don't believe you'll be able to without getting into legalism but I'm all ears.

Resting in Him,
Clete
Here.

He denies the very existence of Christ, which shows that he never had a relationship with Him. He was never saved. If he ever gets saved, which I hope happens, then he will be saved for all eternity, but he is not currently saved, and never was. I believe in eternal security, Clete. Just like you do.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Clete said:
Just a quick note to make sure that everyone knows (most of you know already) that I do not believe that one's salvation is secure because of anything that even remotely resembles Calvinist doctrine or the TULIP. If anyone is curious, I'll happily explain why I do believe what I believe but for now, I want to wait and see what lighthouse comes up with first.

Resting in Him,
Clete


Most OSAS are Calvinistic, since TULIP is interrelated and self-consistent, though wrong.

Most Open Theists and Arminians are non-OSAS. Clete, your position probably as something to do with Mid-Acts or your understanding of salvation as irreversible. In a nutshell, how do you support OSAS (I forgot if you already told us)?
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
lighthouse said:
Here.

He denies the very existence of Christ, which shows that he never had a relationship with Him. He was never saved. If he ever gets saved, which I hope happens, then he will be saved for all eternity, but he is not currently saved, and never was. I believe in eternal security, Clete. Just like you do.

Conditional vs unconditional eternal security (cf. there are conditions to enter into salvation). :singer:
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
godrulz said:
Conditional vs unconditional eternal security (cf. there are conditions to enter into salvation). :singer:
Oh, really? What are they?

And are there conditions to remain in salvation?
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
lighthouse said:
Oh, really? What are they?

And are there conditions to remain in salvation?


The conditions to receive salvation (not without which) is repentant faith. I would suggest that the type of faith that saves us is not a one time act that later turns to rebellion and unbelief. It is a continuous faith and trust evidenced by love, knowledge, and obedience to the Royal Law of loving God supremely and others equal to ourselves. This is only possible as we abide in Christ.

At the risk of being misunderstood, I believe a case can be made that:

the grounds (reason for which) of salvation is grace and the person and work of Christ. Salvation is of God, by grace, not by works or human effort.

the conditions (not without which) by which we appropriate His perfect provision are repentant faith (we cease rebellion and are willing to turn from unbelief and what God calls sin in order to turn to God in simple trust). The condition for persevering is a continuance in the faith, not a later reversion to unbelief and rebellion. Faith that does not continue cannot be called faith anymore. It is unbelief or selfish rebellion. I disagree that we cannot change our minds in order to become a believer or that once we are a believer we cannot change our minds back. This would negate free will and make salvation a metaphysically coerced change, rather than a genuine love relationship.

Conditions:

Repentance
Faith
Continuance in the faith (perseverance; abiding)

These are not works, nor are they done in our own strength. We need Him to live His live through us. Just as grace is resistible before we are saved, so it is possible to resist the ministry and work of the Holy Spirit subsequent to salvation. Jesus and His work is perfect. Not everyone is saved in the end. Not everyone who starts the race finishes it.

Salvation is of God and initiated by God. He transforms us. We do have a responsibility of response and receiving (synergism vs monergism/Calvinism...salvation/reconciliation involves two parties and is not unilateral nor causative).
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
godrulz said:
The conditions to receive salvation (not without which) is repentant faith. I would suggest that the type of faith that saves us is not a one time act that later turns to rebellion and unbelief. It is a continuous faith and trust evidenced by love, knowledge, and obedience to the Royal Law of loving God supremely and others equal to ourselves. This is only possible as we abide in Christ.
The faith that saves is a faith that continues. You say that, then you say that it is only possible as we abide in Christ, as if it is possible for those who are placed in Christ to abide outside of Him.

Saving faith continues, for all time. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

At the risk of being misunderstood, I believe a case can be made that:

the grounds (reason for which) of salvation is grace and the person and work of Christ. Salvation is of God, by grace, not by works or human effort.

the conditions (not without which) by which we appropriate His perfect provision are repentant faith (we cease rebellion and are willing to turn from unbelief and what God calls sin in order to turn to God in simple trust). The condition for persevering is a continuance in the faith, not a later reversion to unbelief and rebellion. Faith that does not continue cannot be called faith anymore. It is unbelief or selfish rebellion. I disagree that we cannot change our minds in order to become a believer or that once we are a believer we cannot change our minds back. This would negate free will and make salvation a metaphysically coerced change, rather than a genuine love relationship.
1] Faith that does not continue cannot be called faith, ever.
2] Creations cannot be uncreated. Same goes for new creations.
3] We cannot deny what we know. To deny it, we would have to have never known it.
4] God renews the minds of those He makes His. We will not change our minds, because they have been renewed.
5] Our will is conformed to His will. Plain and simple. Once we are His, our wills are no longer at enmith with Him. This is why we will never change our minds back to where we once were, if we are His.

"I could never entertain the thought that things were better back in Egypt."
-Skypark
'Shelter'
Am I Pretty?

Conditions:

Repentance
Faith
Continuance in the faith (perseverance; abiding)
A faith that does not continue is no faith at all.

These are not works, nor are they done in our own strength. We need Him to live His live through us. Just as grace is resistible before we are saved, so it is possible to resist the ministry and work of the Holy Spirit subsequent to salvation. Jesus and His work is perfect. Not everyone is saved in the end. Not everyone who starts the race finishes it.
They are not done in our own strength, yet we can discontinue them?:confused:

Do you see how backwards that sounds?

Salvation is of God and initiated by God. He transforms us. We do have a responsibility of response and receiving (synergism vs monergism/Calvinism...salvation/reconciliation involves two parties and is not unilateral nor causative).
All of salvation is of God. All of Him, and none of us.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
If salvation is all of God (true in a sense), then why are not all men saved? If we respond to His drawing, then there is a sense in which we are a factor (will; mind). If not, you are left with TULIP as an alternative. Reconciliation (biblical concept) is not unilateral. It involves two parties with different roles/responses. God freely offers the gift of salvation to all men. All men do not chose to receive Christ. All men are not saved. One can say the provision is all of God, but this does not mean that man is not a factor in appropriating it. If this is true with justification, it is also true with sanctification and perseverance.

"We cannot deny what we know. To deny it, we would have to have never known it."

This is not absolutely true all the time. One cannot defend this assumption logically.

I once knew and understood classical theism. I believed it to be true. I now deny some aspects of it in favor of Open Theism. Now I know 2 views, but only affirm one as correct. Others would argue that I have digressed into heresy. They may or may not know the views. In the future, I could change my mind and revert to classic theism. Again, depending on whether it is true or not, I would either be returning to error or back to the truth. Change of mind and will is possible before and after salvation. This is self-evident.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
godrulz said:
If salvation is all of God (true in a sense), then why are not all men saved? If we respond to His drawing, then there is a sense in which we are a factor (will; mind). If not, you are left with TULIP as an alternative. Reconciliation (biblical concept) is not unilateral. It involves two parties with different roles/responses. God freely offers the gift of salvation to all men. All men do not chose to receive Christ. All men are not saved. One can say the provision is all of God, but this does not mean that man is not a factor in appropriating it. If this is true with justification, it is also true with sanctification and perseverance.
We do not save ourselves. Nothing we do saves us, or keeps us saved.

"We cannot deny what we know. To deny it, we would have to have never known it."

This is not absolutely true all the time. One cannot defend this assumption logically.

I once knew and understood classical theism. I believed it to be true. I now deny some aspects of it in favor of Open Theism. Now I know 2 views, but only affirm one as correct. Others would argue that I have digressed into heresy. They may or may not know the views. In the future, I could change my mind and revert to classic theism. Again, depending on whether it is true or not, I would either be returning to error or back to the truth. Change of mind and will is possible before and after salvation. This is self-evident.
You didn't know it as fact. You can not deny that 2+2=4, can you? You cannot deny your wife's existence, can you? And you can't even deny the existence of classical theism. You can deny it's validity, but not that it exists. After salvation there is a change of mind and will that disallows for reversion to the former state.
 

God_Is_Truth

New member
godrulz said:
Most OSAS are Calvinistic, since TULIP is interrelated and self-consistent, though wrong.

Most Open Theists and Arminians are non-OSAS. Clete, your position probably as something to do with Mid-Acts or your understanding of salvation as irreversible. In a nutshell, how do you support OSAS (I forgot if you already told us)?

OSAS is not the same as Perseverance of the Saints (the P in TULIP).
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
lighthouse said:
We do not save ourselves. Nothing we do saves us, or keeps us saved.


You didn't know it as fact. You can not deny that 2+2=4, can you? You cannot deny your wife's existence, can you? And you can't even deny the existence of classical theism. You can deny it's validity, but not that it exists. After salvation there is a change of mind and will that disallows for reversion to the former state.


Then we are less free afer salvation and less free than unbelievers (whether they ever believe or not).

I cannot deny math. Some people do. They are in error. Those who renounce their faith are stupid and selfish and now believe a lie. It does not negate the possibility that they once believed the truth (as they surely did if they affirmed the Deity and resurrection of Christ). It is possible to go from a state of error to truth or from truth to error. I cannot deny my wife's existence, but I can divorce her and sever the relationship. Many former believers in Christ still believe in God's existence, but they are now part of a false religion or have no heart faith in Christ anymore. Denying the existence of classical theism is not the issue. It is whether I still trust in it as truth. Many people believe in God, yet are not born again. Some who trusted Christ have fallen away.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
God_Is_Truth said:
OSAS is not the same as Perseverance of the Saints (the P in TULIP).


They believe the same thing, but maybe for different reasons?

TULIP involves irresistible grace.

What is your mechanism to ensure OSAS? Open Theism and Arminianism typically deny OSAS. Calvinism and Enyart and C. Gordon Olson come to mind for OSAS (Enyart and Olson are not Calvinistic).
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
godrulz said:
Then we are less free afer salvation and less free than unbelievers (whether they ever believe or not).
We are not as free as you would like to believe. We are slaves to righteousness.

I cannot deny math. Some people do. They are in error. Those who renounce their faith are stupid and selfish and now believe a lie. It does not negate the possibility that they once believed the truth (as they surely did if they affirmed the Deity and resurrection of Christ). It is possible to go from a state of error to truth or from truth to error. I cannot deny my wife's existence, but I can divorce her and sever the relationship. Many former believers in Christ still believe in God's existence, but they are now part of a false religion or have no heart faith in Christ anymore. Denying the existence of classical theism is not the issue. It is whether I still trust in it as truth. Many people believe in God, yet are not born again. Some who trusted Christ have fallen away.
Faith does not die.
 

God_Is_Truth

New member
godrulz said:
They believe the same thing, but maybe for different reasons?

no, they are entirely different things with a shared aspect (saved to the end).

What is your mechanism to ensure OSAS?

are you asking why i believe it? or are you asking what the difference is between them?
 
Top