Click to join the conversation with over 500,000 Pentecostal believers and scholars
Click to get our FREE MOBILE APP and stay connected
Roger Wilkinson | PentecostalTheology.com
Those embracing “Once Saved Always Saved” are trusting in a false presupposition that distorts the doctrine of salvation. The typical Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) adherent views salvation ONLY from the perspective of what Jesus Christ has done for us.
A Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) adherent views salvation ONLY from the perspective of what Jesus Christ has done for us.
1. Our actions or our “good works” can never pay the penalty for our sin. (True) 2. This makes us completely dependent upon Jesus Christ to pay the penalty for us. (True) 3. This means that nothing I do can either add or take away from what Christ has done. (True) 4. Therefore, my actions whether good or bad do not affect MY salvation. (False)
Their focused on what Jesus has done; the fact we cannot add anything to what Jesus has done. They forget there are 2 sides to this equation. They do not understand that although Jesus has paid the penalty for our sins (100% without any help from us) the offer of salvation is a conditional offer. Jesus exhorts believers to faithfully follow Him.
Many cringe when the word conditional is used in connection to salvation. They feel that it is being implied the atoning death of Jesus did not fully pay the penalty for sin. They miss the fact that “It is by grace you have been saved, THROUGH FAITH.” They truly do not understand that we are saved by grace through our continuing faith (Col. 1:23).
Those believing in once saved always saved do not understand faith because they have subtly changed the meaning of what it means to have FAITH. To OSAS adherents, FAITH does not mean believing everything that Jesus said, nor it does not mean obeying Jesus, nor does it does mean faithfully following Jesus unto death. FAITH is simply the acceptance of an offer. FAITH, to them, means being willing to complete the transaction by accepting the free gift of eternal life.
Here is the equation they use: “Jesus offers” + “We accept” = “Transaction Complete!”
Although they do not state it this way, this equation is what is actually being taught. They simply miss the fact the offer of eternal life is not a complete equation. They do not understand the offer comes with the EXPECTATION that we will live a faithful life. This is why they use terminology like “Just ACCEPT Jesus as your Savior.”
They see salvation strictly as a transaction. Therefore, in order to complete the equation / transaction, according to what they teach, we must accept the offer. However, Jesus does not want your acceptance … He wants your obedience.
Jesus promised, “Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death (which is the Lake of Fire).” Rev. 2:10-11
Their heretic misunderstanding of faith prevents OSAS adherents from understanding the doctrine of Christ. Simply, all believers must remain faithful to Jesus Christ unto death.
Varnel Watson
John Conger David Rollings Roger David isn’t this some sort of Charismatic Eternal Security (CES/OSAS), to say that once you are saved you can never backslide and be demon possessed? Al Green Wade T. Foster
John Conger
I agree. The osas focus only on His redemption and not on our repentance. I feel I can speak with some authority on this as my wife was raised independent Baptist. When we got married I was the devil because I didn’t agree with osas. They truly and honestly believed that it really didn’t matter how you lived as long as you accepted Jesus you were ok with God. Repentance really want necessary. I was attacked many times over this.
Varnel Watson
I guess in this case is either or David Rollings There’s a fundamental controversy between both that I am afraid can never be justified theologically
Roger David
The original lie, “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die”
Anonymous
The thumbnail is a really good explanation I think.
Anonymous
Jamie Brown why would you think that?
Anonymous
That is absolutely false.
It is a FALSE, unbiblical definition of OSAS that teaches “license to sin.” It is a man centered teaching that compromises the biblical doctrines of God, man, sin and salvation.
Biblically defined, OSAS is foundational biblical doctrine. All whom God has chosen in eternity past to redeem He predestined to eternal life. All will come to Him, none will be lost.
This is an example of the multitude of erroneous spiritual posts in social media: failing to biblically define terms.
Anonymous
Duane L Burgess Arminianism, as with the overall theology of the early Church fathers, will never die. Calvinism experiences ebb and flow in popularity but Arminianism and other non-Calvinistic theological systems remain constant. I argue, though, that Calvinists should, because of this truth, advance the theology of Arminius among those who refuse to adopt Calvinism. Why? Because Arminius is as close as one gets to Calvinism without embracing Calvinism. Whether we consider Simon Episcopius, Hugo Grotius, Philipp van Limborch (and other lesser known Remonstrants like Jan Uytenbogaert, Gerhard Vossius, Caspar Barlaeus, Johann Oldenbarneveldt and Conrad Vorstius), John and Charles Wesley, Thomas Coke, Francis Asbury, Adam Clarke, Richard Watson, or H. Orton Wiley, not one of these theologians, including John Wesley himself, is as Reformed in his thinking as is the Dutch Reformed scholastic theologian Jacob Arminius.
Calvinist scholar Dr. Richard A. Muller laments that the theology of Arminius is “neglected both by his admirers and by his detractors.”1 Though he disagrees with the tenor of Arminius’ theology, Muller can objectively regret the loss of Arminius over the last four centuries, and place Arminius within his rightful Reformed context: “Arminius’ theology must, in fact, be interpreted in the context of the development of scholastic Protestantism as a scholastic theology in its own right.”2 Arminius is not some rogue heretic intent on the ruination of the Church. Muller confesses that, if Arminius is teaching a theological message “stylistically and doctrinally widely divergent from and foreign to the Reformed mind of his time, he could have been ignored or at least easily dismissed.”3 This is a remarkable statement that requires some attention.
Muller is not necessarily attempting to vindicate Arminius’ deviation from Calvinism. He admits that Arminius does not “follow the [scholastic] Reformed down the path of radical monergism and strict [unconditional] predestinarianism.”4 This is the primary reason why the Remonstrants abandon the scholastic method — and inadvertently lose Arminius in so doing — for the rhetorical and exegetical method of interpreting Scripture: in order to combat Calvinistic ideology. Arminius, however, maintains his scholasticism and yet breaks methodological tradition by rejecting strict monergism and unconditional election. In other words, this is tantamount to affirming one’s belief in the sovereignty of God, within a Reformed context, but rejecting exhaustive and meticulous determinism. How is this accomplished? By properly defining and biblically contextualizing the sovereignty of God.
Regardless, what we find in Arminius is a similar style of Reformed thinking, but a void of Calvinistic excess. The atonement in Arminius, for example, is substitutionary in nature and satisfactory to God the Father.5 Passages throughout Scripture (e.g., John 1:29; 1 Tim. 4:10; 1 John 2:2) refer not to automatic, universal salvation, but to the explicit extent of the atonement. The atonement of Christ is capable of saving all people, without qualification, even though the atonement of Christ will not save all people without qualification, since the condition for the application of the atonement procured for all people is faith in Christ (cf. Rom. 3:25 ESV) by the enabling grace of the Holy Spirit. While in Arminius we will not find a strict limited atonement theory, such is due to his rejection of unconditional election, which actually necessitates, logically, a limited atonement theory in intent and extent.
Whom has God elected to save? Beyond any semblance of doubt the doctrine of election and predestination is the capstone of controversy for Arminius and his Dutch Reformed colleagues. Like the early Church fathers, prior to St Augustine in the early fifth century, Arminius argues, along with St Paul, that God has elected to save those who, by the inwardly-working grace of the Holy Spirit, believe in Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 1:21). Though Calvinists disagree, they can at the very least be grateful for two primary aspects of Arminius’ theology on election: 1) God has always foreknown His elect (and the stubborn reprobate); and 2) no one comes to faith in Christ apart from the inward work of grace by the Person of the Holy Spirit.
In other words, Arminius may reject Calvinism, but he also rejects Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. For one searching for a moderate or middle position between Calvinism and Semi-Pelagianism, Arminius’ theology is just that, the via media. Why must a sufficient prior work be performed by the Spirit of God? Because, in our fallen and sinful state, the free will of man and woman towards God and His gracious offer of salvation in and through Christ is “not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and . . . weakened; but it is also . . . imprisoned, destroyed, and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.”6 Calvinist R. C. Sproul confesses: “The language of Augustine, Martin Luther, or John Calvin is scarcely stronger than that of Arminius.”7 We are at a loss as to how Arminius could be stronger.
How does God know His elect? Arminius does not use the sloppy reasoning of God “looking down through the corridors of time in order to see who would and who would not believe.” Such an analogy renders God in the vein of the Open Theist: God is learning. No, God does not learn any aspect of reality, but He is the source of all that exists. For Arminius, God’s exhaustive and meticulous knowledge is derived “by His own and sole essence . . . He knows all possible things in the perfection of their own essence,” as the Calvinistic Westminster divines also confess (link), and “therefore all things impossible.”8 Moreover, the exhaustive and meticulous “understanding of God is certain and infallible.”9 (emphasis added) In the eternal mind of God, and by His own divinely-initiated creative act, He has always known every single individual as either elect or reprobate. This notion is as close to Calvinism as one can get without actually adopting Calvinism. The subject of salvation is settled in the eternal mind of our omniscient God.
These issues are important for the Calvinist since, if a person must reject Calvinism, then there is a theology for such a person that is still broadly Reformed, still strictly Protestant and Trinitarian, and will keep the individual from erring theologically. In Arminius, one maintains original sin, and Adam as representative head of all fallen mortals; as a result each person is born totally depraved and completely incapable of coming to faith in Christ apart from the ministry of the enabling Holy Spirit; God will graciously save the believer but will condemn the unbeliever; the atonement of Christ is offered to all but applied solely to the elect — i.e., those who believe in Christ; and the one who by the inward grace of the Holy Spirit perseveres by faith in Christ shall be saved. God has always known such and they are named His elect.
I think Calvinists should advance Arminius for those who reject Calvinism. Arminius delivers one from Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism; he warns them of the dangers of merit and good works within Roman Catholicism; he argues against merit and good works as means of obtaining salvation and the justification of God. In Arminius one learns her need to be born anew of the Spirit of God, by grace through faith in Christ, and justified by God in Christ;
https://www.pentecostaltheology.com/response-to-the-calvinists-war-on-the-sinners-prayer/