once saved always saved

[Richard King]

i got stumped on this one today. I was expressing the fact that one cannot lose his salvation and a friend said "so in the end times if they want to put a mark of the beast on me or a computer chip in me it is no problem right. I'm saved so I can't be condemned for that?"
I didn't really know what to say except that if you were God's elect you just wouldn't do it.

 

[Larry Hughes]

"so in the end times if they want to put a mark of the beast on me or a computer chip in me it is no problem right. I'm saved so I can't be condemned for that?"

At first shake I'd say his issues are much deeper than understanding the sovereignty of God.

First of all if that is his view of sin I'd say he has no idea what sin really is at all. If he thinks he's saved by his obedience of any kind, then he is self-righteous.

It's hard to say what to do knowing no more than that. I'd be inclined to take him straight to the heart of the Law. Explain that 'doing the works of the Law' do not in ANY way fulfill the Law. Maybe talk to him around Romans 1:18 - 3:21.

lh

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by Richard King
i got stumped on this one today. I was expressing the fact that one cannot lose his salvation and a friend said "so in the end times if they want to put a mark of the beast on me or a computer chip in me it is no problem right. I'm saved so I can't be condemned for that?"
I didn't really know what to say except that if you were God's elect you just wouldn't do it.

Hey Richard,

The linking of notions of computer chips-credit cards etc., and the mark of the Beast are mistaken interpretations of Scripture.

Here is a good Reformed sermon about this clarification:

http://www.christreformed.org/resources/sermons_lectures/00000097.shtml?main

See what you think, OK? This ought to help you straighten-out the confusion.

Blessings,

Robin

 

[turmeric]

Very interesting - very interesting indeed!

 

[satz]

The phrase 'once saved always saved' is not necessarily inaccurate...

i think if one is ever saved by God, then one will be always saved.

The problem is that christians today are way to lax in the citeria for the evidence of salvation.

 

[Apologist4Him]

Originally posted by Richard King
i got stumped on this one today. I was expressing the fact that one cannot lose his salvation and a friend said "so in the end times if they want to put a mark of the beast on me or a computer chip in me it is no problem right. I'm saved so I can't be condemned for that?"
I didn't really know what to say except that if you were God's elect you just wouldn't do it.

Hi Richard

The perseverance of God with the Saints is another way of viewing OSAS, and also an expression of the sovereignity of God in salvation. I have a couple of book recommendations for you.

1. Grace Unknown: The Heart of Reformed Theology by R. C. Sproul

2. The Five Points of Calvinism: Defined, Defended, Documented by David N. Steele, Curtis C. Thomas, S. Lance Quinn

I also recommend the following web pages:

http://www.gospeloutreach.net/tulip.html (just click on "Perseverance of the Saints")

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/perseverance.html

Instead of trying to argue that one cannot "loose" salvation, you might trying arguing that one cannot become "unsaved". Remember that his question is a hypothetical, and acknowledge the presuppositions of his question.

 

[Puritanhead]

I often associate the "once saved always saved" cliche with evangelical Arminian-Dispensationalists whether Baptists or Methodists... in any case, those that use the cliche usually esteem Zane Hodges' and Charles Ryrie's Absolutely Free theology of cheap grace and easy-believism. That book fancifully purports one can have once confessed Christ as savior, and fall into avowed atheism and never turn back and still "be saved." Repentance is not seen as being part of our salvation or progressive santification in their camp--- just something for the spiritually mature believers. Those that depart from us were never of us. God is the author and finisher of our faith (Heb 12:2), and though he does not believe for us. He convicts us of our occasional unbelief through his indwelling Holy Spirit if we're truly of saving faith. So, the OSAS cliche might elicit a rearticulation in favor of perseverance or eternal security by many Reformed thinkers. The non-Lordship adherents, and those that willingly embrace the OSAS cliche are focused too much on eliciting "decisions for Christ," espousing cheap grace and walk the aisle easy-believism. If only it were only so easy as hitting one over the head with the Bible and making them a Christian or utilizing overbearing insurance salesmen-style persuassion tactics to elicit a confession of faith. Ideas have consequences and often as a result of watered-down theology by non-Lordship expositors and evangelists, many never get the Gospel equation of repentance or a message with any emphasis on the law which is to bring us to knowledge of sin and deepen our conviction of that sin and need for a Savior.

Eternal Security or more aptly Perseverance of the Saints needs to be interpreted in light of the verses that talk about those who leave us were never of us (i.e. Parable of the Wedding Feast, Parable of the Sower) and the Pauline exhortation to believers to make our calling and election sure, and approach our salvation with fear and trembling, so as to gain cognizance if our salvation is indeed geniune. We can effectuate our assurance of saving faith by setting our sights on the promises of God, trusting in the free and unmerited grace of God, accepting our sinfulness and total inability to effectuate our salvation, while studying and trying to live out his Word. We're called to bear fruit and walk in those good works which the Father has prepared for us (Eph 2:10).

And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
I and my Father are one. --John 10:28-30 (King James Version)



[Edited on 3-2-2005 by Puritanhead]