Galatians destroys OSAS and Steven Anderson

And here's why

Attached: os-cristaos-nas-catacumbas-detidos-pelos-soldados-romanos-ayhpmm.jpg (1300x1169, 552.33K)

Other urls found in this thread:

newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

1)What is Once Saved Always Saved?

Once Saved Always Saved, or OSAS is the view of some Protestants, usually Baptists, that once someone confesses Christ as Lord and Saviour, there is nothing that person can do to lose his salvation. In fact as the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist pastor Steven Anderson states in his sermon on OSAS, even if you try to sin and disbelieve, you are still saved. This possibility is also acknowledged in his sermon “Shall we continue in Sin” where he states that:

 

“Now here's  the  thing,  If  I  don't  talk  to  my  wife  and  my  wife  doesn't  talk  to  me  we  are  not  going  to  have  a  good  relationship. But  are  we  still  married?  Yes    we  are,  see  what  I  mean?  So  if  I  don't  talk  to  God  through  prayer  and  He  doesn't  talk  to  me through  his  work,  we're  not  going  to  have  a  good  relationship  (though  I'm  still  saved).”

 

Notice that if one doesnt pray to God after one is saved, then he is still considered saved, although he wont have a “good relationship” with God. It means clearly this person isnt going to suffer Hell for this and other intentionally sinful actions.

 

Of course unfortunately for OSAS believers, Scripture proves them wrong and here we will look at Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians to see why such is the case.

2)Galatians 1

In the opening of the epistle to the Galatians, Paul already post statements that would not make sense if OSAS is true as the following verses demonstrate:

 

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

 

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

 

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

 

9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

 

 

Here Paul announces that he his “marvelled” at how the Galatians were “so soon removed” from the Grace of Christ. Anderson tries to avoid the implication of this statement by stating in his sermon on Galatians 1 that these Galatians arent Saved. But this view already makes Anderson inconsistent with himself. As him and many OSAS advocates believe, baptism comes after one is saved. It does not have any salvific significance, as Anderson mentions in his sermon “Easter: Fact and Fiction”,

 

You get saved, then you get baptized

 

Unfortunately for Anderson, he forgotten Galatians 3:27 which says:

 

27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

 

 

OSAS advocates will have little wiggle room here, as even in the plain english used, “have” is used, indicating that the act of Baptism was accomplished. Had Paul wanted to emphasize this as a future act, he would had instead said “for as many of you as will be baptized”. Should v27 really entail water Baptism or even just the so called spirit Baptism of many Baptists and Evangelicals, it entails Anderson as guilty of painting Paul as inconsistent as only the Saved get both of these. Hence the only way to make his eisegesis consistent is to admit that OSAS is false and Salvation may be lost, as Galatians 1:6 would address Galatians who bewitched by the Judaizers and false brethren, had fallen away or are on the verge of doing so. We now analyse Galatians 3:27 first to show why this is such.

2)Galatians 3:27 on Baptism

The context of this verse is one within the grand argument of Paul explaining how believers are to be justified by faith and not of the Law. He links believers(also his audience as the intended reader) to the blessings of Abraham and God’s promise to him where the gentiles shall participate in through faith in Jesus Christ. The Law, meant to function as a schoolmaster or pedagogue who disciplines the Israelites before the advent of Christ. These are connected to our main verse mentioning Baptism where we put on Christ, indicated by the use of “for” which serves as the connector.

 

This connection would also entail something about Baptism, that it is connected to the process of justification by faith, in this case being an explanation of why believers are called “Sons of God” in the preceding v.26. The motif here echoes the use of Baptism in other areas of the Pauline corpus, notably Romans 6:3 and Colossians 2:12 in which Baptism is used in conjunction with the benefits of union with Christ. It would also be part of one being grafted into Christ formally under this implication.

OSAS believers, Baptists and Evangelicals may simply push the view of the so called Baptism of the Spirit to avoid the implications of this. While conceding for the sake of showing Anderson’s and typical OSAS believers inconsistency would aid this refutation, an argument for why Galatians refer to water Baptism would be given, to further demonstrate the flaws in their eisegesis. For one, the updated form of Strong’s concordance and lexicon, the Bauer Lexicon opposes this in outlining the Scriptural usages of Baptism. One of the definitions for Baptism it gives is the “Christian sacrament of initiation after Jesus’ death”.

 

Amongst the verses listed to use this definition of Baptism are the ones mentioned here. OSAS, Baptists or Evangelicals may object to this, stating that “it isnt the Bible”, but this only makes them inconsistent when they appeal to the dated Strong’s on Biblehub whenever they want to get the Greek.

 

Perhaps even despite these, OSAS believers would simply say that it is simply a statement about how one believes and then gets Baptized after one is Saved. Even here, other verses tell us to militate against this. We use Galatians 4:8-11 as one proof of this.

Attached: web3-early-christians-clebrate-mass-public-domain.jpg (620x310, 52.18K)

 

3)Galatians 4:8-11

8 Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods.

 

9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

 

10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

 

11 I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.

 

To prevent this from showing OSAS and his views of the Galatians salvific status as false, Anderson claims in his sermon on Galatians 4 that it simply means that Paul simply thought they were saved when they in fact are not. So he doubts their salvation. This interpretation does not make sense as it does not match the very structure of the verse. Had Paul wanted to convey the idea that he now doubts whether they had even been Saved, he wouldnt had said that they known God or rather known by Him but rather express himself closely with his interpretation. But as the text in its english form shows, this is hardly the case.

 

Should this plain meaning be insufficient, a more in depth analysis of these verses will be given. First off we begin at the word “know” in reference to being known by God. This term in Biblical usage typically refers to one’s relationship with God(eg, 1John 2:3, 4, 14, 3:6, Hebrews 8:11). When used in the context of “known by God”, the same sense of intimacy is the case, alongside election(eg, Genesis 18:19, Amos 3:2).

 

“Turn ye again” in v9 or the Greek,epistrephete(ἐπιστρεφετε) is a verb that denotes a “change of mind or action for better or worse” according to the Bauer Lexicon. Indeed this term in Matthew 13:15 refers to conversion positively. In light of these positive connotations, it could be possible that Paul’s use here have an ironic sense, where the Galatians having a close intimate relationship with God but now seek after the works of the Mosaic Law. As the tense here is present in the Greek, this would indicate that the Galatians are in the process of turning and if they turn completely, Christ shall have no affect upon them. This makes the security and salvation of the Galatians conditional on their faith and in some sense even their actions, opposing the OSAS view.

 

To understand further the gravity of this statement, we must turn a chapter back, to Galatians 3:1-5

Attached: baptist-church-first-discovered.jpg (290x300, 18.94K)

4)Galatians 3:1-5

3 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

 

2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

 

3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

 

4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

 

5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

 

Anderson’s eisegesis here proves deficient. In his sermon on Galatians 3, his overall view can be expressed as: the Apostles preached the Gospel to the Galatians and ministered to them, they didnt follow and not Saved at all, they return to the Law.

 

By analysing these verses deeper, we will start to see how Anderson’s understanding of them doesnt conform to their flow.

 

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.

 

Attached: old-engravings-depicts-saint-ignatius-260nw-87201871.jpg (323x280, 39.46K)

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. The danger of this situation with the Judaizers expressed in Galatians 2:4:

 

4 And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage

 

Had OSAS be what Paul had in mind, this and all we covered wouldnt be what we find when analysing the verses and letting them speak for themselves. Yet when we do, a contradictory picture of the OSAS eisegesis emerges. The context shows Paul persuading the Galatians through appeal to their spiritual experiences. Even if a baptism of the spirit is presupposed, we are still dealing with people whom by Anderson’s own beliefs would had been Saved but yet he preaches otherwise. We are left only with an inerrant Scripture contradicting itself. Yet when we look at the verses in their own proper order and context, we see a consistent Paul against the notion of OSAS

Nice work OP. Wonder how OSAS Baptists will address these

And that's a good thing

The way that prots answer lines such as Matthew 16:27 in regard to sola fide
By quoting some other part of the Bible claiming that that line disproves the line in question.

What the hell is with this clickbait format? Put what you want to say in the OP, don’t have the OP just say “and here’s why” or “and that’s a good thing,” this isn’t buzzfeed

he's the big gay

So how many good deeds are required in Gods eyes to he saved?

It's not how many good deeds but How much you're willing to purify yourself and turn your mind, heart and body honestly towards God
Both the pharisee and the complacent protestant are bound to hell

The pharisee for doing empty works for he doesn't know charity and is full of pride
The "OSAS" protestant for believing than a simple mental adhesion to the word of God is enough to be saved and not a complete transformation of one's being.
He is right when he says that FAITH saves, but FAITH isn't "I believe Jesus died for me" it's "I believe Jesus died for me, he gave me the chance to be saved so I'll catch it and become a worthy servant of God myself"

A sinner who tries his earnest to do God's will and always repent, is higher in HIS eyes than a hypocrital devout.

TL;DR : How many good deeds is: the best you, yourself, can do as long as you really try..

Attached: 7.jpg (600x640, 308.49K)

And what sin will take away your salvation once you have it? Is it a one time deal or are you constantly pingponging between saved and unsaved?
What happens if I was saved 99% of my life and in my final moments lose it? Does that 99% count for nothing?

You probably know the answer to this one, just think of verses like Hebrews 6:4-6 but form a Catholic perspective.

Catholic doctrine generally is very rich and here is no exception. One interesting consequence of the doctrine of merit is the following, which indeed is beautiful:


Meaning, the call to the imitation of Christ, who Himself lived as a sacrifice, takes on many more important but no less real senses. Acts which count toward this satisfaction include that "penance imposed on him by his confessor, by self-imposed penances (such as prayer, fasting, almsgiving, etc.) and by bearing patiently the sufferings and trials sent by God." But since Grace is a perfect gift, then truly, "the Lord . . . whose bounty towards all men is so great, that He will have the things, which are His own gifts, be their merits."

newadvent.org/cathen/10202b.htm

Attached: 04angelu.jpg (1002x825, 122.22K)

I think OP may be suffering from a Vitamin K deficiency.

Attached: Vitamin K.webm (1280x720, 5.59M)

OP destroys Anderson hard

He doesn't say they're removed from the grace of Christ. He says they're removed from "him that called you into the grace of Christ". This seems like a pretty obvious distinction–you can have a falling out with the guy who taught you about Jesus and still be saved, but that's still a bad thing that you'd want to rectify.

And if you took one second to read the whole verse, it says the Galatians moved to "another Gospel". Who knew that if someone decides to go to a different Gospel than the original one Jesus or Paul preached that it means you are Saved for what is essentially Apostasy. And if v8 and 9 are anything to go by, it makes them "accursed".

Your comment also ignores the other parts of Galatians where Paul speaks of Christ having no effect upon them if they take the step of Circumcision. The Greek indicates that the Galatians are in the process of doing that and if they proceed, Christ is of no effect. And this is also the same people who are known by God as Paul says and experienced the Spirit.

So literally Paul is saying "if you guys proceed, Christ is no longer of any effect upon you and what you had will be all in vain!"

This conditional destroys Anderson and OSAS. Which is probably why you can only play around with one verse from Galatians 1 and act like the rest of what I provided with reference to the Biblical Greek grammar are refuted when in fact they arent addressed

On the OSAS view, you're saved by trusting in God before you apostasized. You're not saved for your apostasy, you're saved from it.
It makes the one who preached the other gospel to them accursed. Again, this seems like a really important distinction.
That's not even close to literally what he said.

I doubt most Protestants believe this doctrine. Yes, God has given the gift of salvation, but gifts can be both rejected and returned. In the same way, spouses going through hard times these days are more likely to divorce than remain married and resolve their differences.

If one is "accursed", Christ have no effect upon them. This is literally the most natural reading of the text. Even if one doesnt go deep into the Greek grammar to explain it, the fact that Paul uses words like "no effect" or "vain" are sufficient to show he rejects OSAS.

Making your affirmations without engaging with anything I listed is not an argument

Also, according to OSAS, The Galatians either cannot fall away by necessity, or they will still be saved even if they commit apostasy.

The former is so because had one said God "foreknows" they will persevere, that simply means God knows they will and that given the Galatians are free creatures they are self moving and have the liberty of indifference to do otherwise. That simply liberty means OSAS cannot be true by definition or else we must accept the Calvinist view that those people were predestined deterministically. So the OSAS believer must then move on to saying they are still Saved even if they apostasized. But this contradicts Paul's language where he says the Galatians experienced the Spirit and justification. If they return to bondage it is in vain. Christ have no effect. If the Galatians wont lose salvation, this means Paul is either lying or he is literally opposing OSAS. Because why would he set up statements to remind Galatians of their experiences and then express fear they will be in vain? If they are saved and forever will be, it entails that it wasnt really all "in vain". And had the Galatians be OSAS, then Paul is making no sense by saying "Christ have no effect upon you", as the OSAS view clearly says all who are saved are saved by Christ' work and belief in it. So the mere fact that this is so means that even if the Galatians apostasize, Christ still have an effect on them, which is contrary to Paul's statement

Therefore OSAS is against Galatians

No according to OSAS, saved people will not commit apostasy. Do you really think every Galatian in the Church was apostate?

Which therefore leads to the first conclusion I outlined. Either way the fact that the Greek of Galatians indicates that the Galatians are in process of going to another Gospel and will be in a state where all Christ did will be in vain or of no effect, shows that OSAS is not in Paul's mind and he is truly concerned for the Galatians' salvation, which makes no sense to do so in his way if OSAS is true.

So you are essentially a closet Calvinist here as this is the only logical conclusion

Also, actually read what I said rather than blindly reply. The first statement I made is that OSAS says those who are Saved cannot fall away by necessity. I then explained why this is so.

My point posit two views of OSAS. One which you claim here and another affirmed by Steven Anderson. So your OSAS is therefore closet Calvinist in nature

“OSAS” never says other people can truly know if someone is saved or not.
Paul sees some people falling away in Galatia, either out of ignorance or true apostasy.
Writes an Epistle to the whole church so the saved can be edified.

Which no claim about OSAS on this point is made by me here. Using the excuse of "some Galatians falling away" does not work because Paul does not single out "some" or says so at all. So we need not presume as you do which is simply dodging the truth.

Even worse, had we even assume your view, those "some Galatians" still experienced what those who are Saved experienced which is the Holy Spirit and Baptism. If your view is true, then Paul wouldnt even appeal to these as if directed at those that are falling away. This means your point is simply an excuse to eisegete

Good thread OP. None of the Baptists even addressed your point

Protestants and Papists are both sick in the damned head.

As a seminary student, I can confirm that OP's exegesis is accurate and disproves OSAS

this is the redpill. OSAS is false

animefag what do you get out of this aren't you a atheist?//

This has fell out of favor, even amongst Baptists. The new view is that you have to ask forgiveness and show contrition.

Being saved and getting Baptized is not a permanent get out of jail free card. More Catholics beleive this meme than Baptists.

We've gone full circle. First, it's OSAS and Catholics are wrong, now it's the Catholics who are OSAS and wrong.

What's next? Baptist confessions?

Good for them. But explain it to your friends online

OSAS Biblically refuted