Why do people get triggered by salvation by faith alone and the idea that once you are saved...

Why do people get triggered by salvation by faith alone and the idea that once you are saved, you can never lose your salvation?

Attached: Cross.jpg (820x1024, 294.36K)

Other urls found in this thread:

8ch.net/christian/res/714810.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Because it means I can kill people, rob, practice usury, sick a thousand dicks from a glory hole, practice cuckoldry and blasphemate against God every *** day of my life I will be saved because I happened to believe in Jesus when I was 6 thanks to my family and my innocence


Can't you see how retarded such a doctrine is?

Attached: evangelical theology.png (1005x79, 15.81K)

It's not biblical and was never part of the tradition of the Church until the Reformation. It's literally "another gospel".

How did people from the Old Testament get to heaven? Weren't they already calling upon the name of the lord?

They were also keeping the commandments and offering sacrifice for the remission of their sins.
Take the example of Saul, he was God's anointed and yet he was overcome by evil and fell away. So the same can happen to us, why do you say it can't?

Because they're prideful and want to be saved by their works

I thought only God could see the hearts of men. Who are you?

What are the verses that contradict Once Saved Always Saved and Faith Alone salvation?

There are none

A bunch. I like this one in particular:
2 Peter 1:5-7 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith virtue; and to virtue, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love
How is it "Faith alone" if Faith is not even something that exists alone but is modified by other things you have, such as your virtues(which are unnecessary to salvation anyways?)

No, they're more triggered that the dogma of saving faith is the natural, apostolic conclusion of sola scriptura, which is completely opposed with the developmental, monastic tradition of the cathodox church's ideology.

Attached: Christian_bda84a_6640763.jpg (1200x1742, 187.71K)

I think Galatians 5:19-21 and other similar verses are quite clear.

Almost as if you answered your own question

Yeah galations is clear I agree

Galatians 2:16-21 King James Version (KJV)
16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.

19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Ok, but how does this passage prove OSAS?

It doesnt. Galatians proves OSAS is false

It doesnt. Galatians proves OSAS is false

For example see:
8ch.net/christian/res/714810.html

Because it means all their works were in vain,
"Lord, Lord, many good works have I done in your name…"
"Begone from me, I never knew you."

It means they would have to admit how evil they truly are.
"And this is the condemnation, that light entered into the world, and men loved darkness more than light, lest they come to the light, and their deeds be reproved"

You confuse "falling away" with "damned to hell," which are not the same thing.
I understand it's catholic doctrine that there is no salvation outside your church, so I see where you're coming from.

I'm Orthodox and you don't know my doctrine.

Okay… Catholic but no Pope? 2d icons instead of 3d?
Why do you confuse "falling away" to "damned to hell"?
If someone fell away and went to the wrong Church for a while and then went back to the right one, does that falling away truly ever damn them to hell? I feel like this is a great confusion people make.

Because Scripture states that branches that fall away are thrown into the fire.

It's a lot more than that, we've haven't been in communion for a 1000 years lad.
So they erred, but then repented? They should be fine imo.

So, if you go to the wrong Church once you're thrown in the fire? And you don't think that's referring to false churches as a whole?
Have you thought also there is more to the parable of the true vine than "ooh something else I need to do so I dont go to hell"?

This is nonsense

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.

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

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.

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

in Matthew 25:31-46 the sheeps are rewarded because they have provided for the king himself by feeding the hungry, provisioning the thirsty with water, welcoming the stranger, clothing the naked, caring for the sick, and visiting those in prison (vv. 34-40). When the righteous express their ignorance regarding their performance of these merciful deeds, inquiring about when they have done the things for which they are rewarded (vv. 37-39), the king responds, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did it to me” (v. 40).43 So closely linked are Jesus and his followers that showing material kindness to Jesus’ disciples is to do the same for Jesus himself. In a very real way, then, by caring for fellow disciples, the sheep embody the secret performance of merciful deeds advocated in Matt 6:2-4, for the righteous are not even aware of the extent to which their ἐλεημοσύνη has ministered to Christ.

Conversely, the goats are sent away “into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (v. 41), cursed and banished to eternal punishment (v. 46) because of their failure to perform merciful deeds for followers of Jesus who are hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, sick, and imprisoned. Nothing is stated or implied about the motivations of those sheep who have acted mercifully on behalf of the destitute, although the motif of divine judgment on the basis of how individuals have cared for the marginalized strongly suggests that, here as elsewhere in Matthew’s Gospel, ethics are motivated by eschatology.

Stop eisegesis. Do exegesis

It's such a cop out.

Because it's wrong.