OSAS is unbiblical
Many of the people on this board will go to hell
Jonathan Anderson
Landon King
Galatians 3:1-5
The opening verse tells us the reason for the Galatians’ foolishness. Given the use of “bewitched”, it may be possible that their succumbing to the Judaizers could be due to an “evil spiritual influence”. Bauer’s Lexicon defines the Greek for bewitched(βασκαίνω) as to “exert an evil influence through the eye”. Usage here is metaphorical, no doubt referring to the influence of the Judaizing group. Yet this is foolishness as the Gospel was preached to them. The visual reference to Christ used here may indicate that Paul utilizes the rhetorical technique of ekphrasis which focuses on vivid imagery. This poses a problem for Anderson and those that are iconoclastic, as Paul is essentially admitting to preaching the Gospel in a manner that uses “word pictures” which create mental images. Given the main topic at hand, further explorations on this issue will be for a later time.
Next, Paul asks the question of how the Galatians received the Spirit. This unfortunately for Anderson blows his case out of the water, as such indicates that Paul presuppose that the Galatians actually received the Holy Spirit. Oddly for Anderson, he doesnt mention anything about the Spirit in v2, possibly due to this. Still, it must be clarified that this reception of the Spirit is through faith, or in this case, believing the Gospel preached and given what is stated in v27, Baptism as part of this.
Moving to v3, we see more confirmations that advice against taking the OSAS viewpoint. The phrase “having begun” is an aorist participle ἐναρξάμενοι(enarxamenoi) which its only other reference is Philippians 1:6 which refers to the very work God will do in the believer. Bauer’s lexicon notes that in both contexts, what is referred to here is the beginning of the Christian’s life. The two verses even parallel each other, with Galatians being more ironic given its pastoral situation. This detail is left out of Anderson’s own sermon on this chapter and it is quite obvious why, once this is considered, it would entail the Galatians as actually receiving a beginning from God who works in them and having received the Spirit. These are defeaters to his interpretation that the Galatians were never Saved in the first place.
On v4, the “suffering” could invoke the sense that the Galatians went through some persecution, perhaps even due to the incursions of the Judaizers. In Anderson’s sermon, nothing of this is implied. In this verse, the particle γέ is used, as shown in the Greek render below:
τοσαῦτα ἐπάθετε εἰκῇ; εἴ γε καὶ εἰκῇ
This particle is meant to place focus on a single idea or place according to the Bauer lexicon. Thus this would suggest the Galatian’s experiences of “sufferings” to be the idea in focus. With v5 focusing on miracles and the ministering of the Spirit and the preceding v3 referring to the work of the Spirit in the Galatians, it is most likely that they also experienced the Spirit that aid them in these sufferings. Should they turn away now, all these would had be in vain. The tone of these experiences being in vain is one that may express a hope that they will reject the Judaizers in light of these experiences.
This again, nullifies the OSAS position, as the way Paul addresses the situation is one where he sees the Galatians in a real danger of making all their experiences of being Saved as being in vain
Leo Moore
There is no hell, though, because Christianity is a jewish long con.
Neither is there a heaven.
There are morals but they are not defined by a semite phantasm.
If you need Elohim Yahwenowitz to tell you that killing is bad when any tribe that kills one another needlessly will naturally die out, then you're pretty sad.
Copypasta is not a spirituality.
Kevin Perez
The state of this board
Anthony Stewart
Ok, this is epic
James Evans
Alright them please offer me evidence that killing is bad in these cases
1: The person is in your "tribe" I love your LARPer terminology. is disliked by the tribe, you will gain power through his death.
2: The person is not of your tribe, you will gain nothing, but there will be no negative consequences through their death.
3: The person has wronged you severely, and you will not be caught if you kill them.
Is killing ok in these cases? If yes, why? If no, why not? What is your bases for your reasoning?
Hunter Peterson
Ethan Sanchez
You didn't need to reply to my post user, I was being ironic.
Ryan Cruz
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Easton Howard
Thi is literally the lowest level bait made by Prots. But realizing how weak Protestant "theology" is, it is not very surprising.
Prots: Everybody that believes gets saved. There is no "one true church" Sola Fide
Also prots: IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN MUH SOLA FIDE THEN YOU'RE DAMNED!
Protestants trying to claim Protestantism is the one true faith.
lol
Cute.
But also boring.