Free Will and OSAS ???

[Preachers12]

Peace be with you.

This thought came to me earlier and I posted it in OBOB, but the more I thought about it, I wanted to hear the perspective from some who believe in OSAS. Not debating. Learning.

If we are saved once we make an open, true acceptance of Jesus as our personal Lord and saviour, does that mean that our divine gift of free will ends at that point?

I mean, if you believe that once you make that choice, you are then saved regardless of what you do, doesn't it deny our ability to later choose? To later exercise our gift of free will?

Thanks for any thoughts on this. Again, it is not an attack on OSAS. It is something I just thought about today and wanted to see others' opinions on. I may ask clarifying questions, but I will not debate or demean OSAS beliefs.

God Bless,
P12

[II Paradox II]

I mean, if you believe that once you make that choice, you are then saved regardless of what you do, doesn't it deny our ability to later choose? To later exercise our gift of free will?
Logically speaking it would not be a denial of free-will (defined as the ability to choose otherwise). You could, for instance, simply say that once one makes a decision for Christ that God now forgives that person and they will receive all the benefits thereupon. If this is the case then their will is still free even though someone is giving them many good things that they may not want.

think about it this way... imagine you dated a rich girl and you told her you loved her. In response to this she buys you a gift a day for the rest of your life. Even if you stop loving her and don't desire her gifts, it doesn't mean you have no free-will if she keeps on giving you gifts anyways. It just means that you're getting gifts you don't want.

BTW- I'm a calvinist so I deny OSAS, but this particular argument against it isn't very effective.

ken

[Preachers12]

think about it this way... imagine you dated a rich girl and you told her you loved her. In response to this she buys you a gift a day for the rest of your life. Even if you stop loving her and don't desire her gifts, it doesn't mean you have no free-will if she keeps on giving you gifts anyways. It just means that you're getting gifts you don't want.

Ken, Peace be with you.

Thank you for your response.

But even in this example, you still have the free will to reject the gifts, don't you? (don't open them, throw them away, give them away....)

God Bless,
P12

PS. I sure would have liked a girlfriend like that!!!! Hehehe.

[FreeinChrist]

I mean, if you believe that once you make that choice, you are then saved regardless of what you do, doesn't it deny our ability to later choose? To later exercise our gift of free will?

P12A key question is this - do you believe that God is omniscient, knows all that will happen, and that God can look into us and see the true intent of our heart?

As one who believes in OSAS, I don't believe that salvation is totally at our whim. Yes, we have to make the choice to receive salvation, having believed and repented and professed in Christ. But it is God who then looks into our minds and hearts and knows if it is true. He knows if it is a true belief, one that will stay the course or not. For instance, He knows if "John" is believing tonight enough to pray for forgiveness, but will forget the whole thing one week later. (and does not accept the prayer then).

It is not at our whim. It is God who draws us to Christ (John 6:44), who grants it to us to come to Christ (John 6:66) and who gives us to Christ (John 6:39). God qualifies us to share in the inheritance of the saints (col. 1:12).

So it isn't just our 'free will' to accept Christ that brings salvation or not, but also God's acceptance of us as truly believing. An OT example of this is Cain and Abel - both brought offerings to God, but God accepted one and not the other.

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

Once someone believes... romans 4:5 then baptised
1 cor 12:13

exodus 4:11 explains a persons deafness to the word and a reason of why some people have no reaction to the word

according to 1 john 1:8-10 it shows that when we are saved we do have free will to obey or not..hebrews 12:5-11 if then if still do not listen james 5:20 thus God is the perfector of are faith and salvation...
yet a free will to get punished hebrews 10:27

[Preachers12]

Once someone believes... romans 4:5 then baptised
1 cor 12:13

exodus 4:11 explains a persons deafness to the word and a reason of why some people have no reaction to the word

according to 1 john 1:8-10 it shows that when we are saved we do have free will to obey or not..hebrews 12:5-11 if then if still do not listen james 5:20 thus God is the perfector of are faith and salvation...
yet a free will to get punished hebrews 10:27
Brethren IN CHRIST, Peace be with you.

I'm very sorry, but I don't understand what you are trying to say at all.

God Bless,
P12

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

Once someone believes... romans 4:5 then baptised
1 cor 12:13

exodus 4:11 explains a persons deafness to the word and a reason of why some people have no reaction to the word

according to 1 john 1:8-10 it shows that when we are saved .
we do have free will to obey or not..hebrews 12:5-11 .
if then if still do not listen james 5:20 thus God is the perfector of are faith and salvation...
yet a free will to get punished hebrews 10:27

ok preacher12 i will try according to mark 16:16 it says that he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved

but some on this board what to say we have to baptise our selves other wise we are not saved However according to Romans 4:2,5 , John 6:29, eph 2:4-9, titus 3:5,romans1:16, john 1:13, 2 tim 1:9 That this is God's work and he does it all...

and if God did not eph 1:4 ..............you will not be chosen ...

but one needs to look at Abram and how long God kept talking to him till he believed Gen 15:6 however did he believe every thing

nope but God is Faithful to perfect the saints since it is His work not our's

1 john 1:8-10 s talking to believers as romans 3:23 is talking about the world

thus 1 cor 10:32 even the church but God will allow them to confess sins or get punishment till he changes his mind even till death since he is a son Hebrew 12:5-11, James 5:20

[II Paradox II]

But even in this example, you still have the free will to reject the gifts, don't you? (don't open them, throw them away, give them away....)
Perhaps it wasn't a perfect example in that respect. Perhaps a better example would simply be to say that she loves you unconditionally and she constantly pours out gifts and blessings to you. Some of these you can freely reject by not opening them or getting rid of them. But others like her love are only contingent on her, not your response.

A believer in OSAS and free-will could respond in a similar way. God loves you and forgives you, but he also gives you the blessing of His fellowship and his church and so forth. Some of those you can reject (like meeting with other believers in church, joy and assurance of His love) while others you couldn't because they are things God freely gives to you (His love, forgiveness, etc...)


PS. I sure would have liked a girlfriend like that!!!! Hehehe.
Only problem is that once she becomes your wife she'd be spending your money on all this stuff... =)

ken

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

On free will we do have but how does John 8:42-47
and 1 john 3:10

seem to be two familys
children of God
children of the devil

[Preachers12]

Perhaps it wasn't a perfect example in that respect. Perhaps a better example would simply be to say that she loves you unconditionally and she constantly pours out gifts and blessings to you. Some of these you can freely reject by not opening them or getting rid of them. But others like her love are only contingent on her, not your response.

A believer in OSAS and free-will could respond in a similar way. God loves you and forgives you, but he also gives you the blessing of His fellowship and his church and so forth. Some of those you can reject (like meeting with other believers in church, joy and assurance of His love) while others you couldn't because they are things God freely gives to you (His love, forgiveness, etc...)

ken
Ken, Peace be with you.

Thanks for taking the time to respond and explain your response.

God Bless,
P12

[Serapha]

Peace be with you.

This thought came to me earlier and I posted it in OBOB, but the more I thought about it, I wanted to hear the perspective from some who believe in OSAS. Not debating. Learning.

If we are saved once we make an open, true acceptance of Jesus as our personal Lord and saviour, does that mean that our divine gift of free will ends at that point?

I mean, if you believe that once you make that choice, you are then saved regardless of what you do, doesn't it deny our ability to later choose? To later exercise our gift of free will?

Thanks for any thoughts on this. Again, it is not an attack on OSAS. It is something I just thought about today and wanted to see others' opinions on. I may ask clarifying questions, but I will not debate or demean OSAS beliefs.

God Bless,
P12
Hi there!

:wave:

So many people have the view of "once saved, always saved" as being un-scriptural. Many think that the doctrine of eternal salvation means that you simply say the words "I have sinned and seek repentance" and that gives them eternal security without any repercussions. Then, the belief is that the eternally saved sinner can go out and do whatever type of sin they wish and it does not keep them out of heaven.


That is a false understanding. It is termed "fire insurance".


Eternal security is guaranteed by the "inspired Words of God"
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 10:25-29
25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.


That passage say I GIVE THEM ETERNAL LIFE AND THEY SHALL NEVER PERISH. No one can take me from my Father's care. I was saved by the grace of God. And by the grace of God I remain saved today, and by the grace of God I will be saved tomorrow. My God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and his grace is sufficient for me. (2Co 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee)

If you were born again in Christ, how can you become "unborn" in Christ?


If you believe you are saved by grace, then how can you believe that grace will not be sufficient to keep you saved?


If you believe that you are saved by faith and no works of your own, then how can you believe that you can "give up" your salvation.



Remember, nothing can separate you from the love of God.
Ro 8:39
Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Briefly put, you may lose the fellowship with God by your choice of "free will", but you will never lose the relationship.


~malaka~

[Preachers12]

Briefly put, you may lose the fellowship with God by your choice of "free will", but you will never lose the relationship.

~malaka~
Malaka, Peace be with you.

Thank you for your response! Just to clarify on that last sentence I quoted, I sort of think of free will as a free gift (as opposed to a choice of ours) of God much like justification (that is, what Jesus accomplished by dying on the cross) is a free gift.

In other words, both are free gifts of God. One comes through being a creation of God. The other comes through the sacrifice of Jesus. Why would one be able to negate our ability to exercise the other?

God Bless,
P12

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

Yes a person can believe in vain as it says in 1 cor 15:1 or 2

[Dandey]

Old fashioned I am but I wonder whether we could please not use so many abbreviations? OBOB, OSAS? However, dealing with the problem, if it is a problem, we were previously servants or slaves (doulos) to sin, once we are in Christ we are servants or slaves to righteousness.
“ You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.” (Romans 6:18 NIV)

Nevertheless, whilst we have been freed from the law of sin and death we still have an obligation:
“ You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love.” (Galatians 5:13 NIV)

The concept of free will is only concerned with salvation - I have a rather hyper-calvinist son and daughter in law whose contention it is that che sara sara (what will be will be) and that as God is sovereign, we cannot do anything against God's purpose. Whilst I tend to agree that we cannot change God's ultimate purpose I do not accept their premise!

Sorry if I am developing a new thread!:rolleyes:

[Preachers12]

Old fashioned I am but I wonder whether we could please not use so many abbreviations? OBOB, OSAS?
Dandey, Peace be with you.

Hehehe. You'll pick it up fast. I said the same thing when I first got here. It isn't as bad as working for the military or government, but there are a lot of them!

OBOB means the One Bread, One Body forum.
OSAS means the belief that "once saved, always saved".

God Bless,
P12

[Preachers12]

Peace be with you.

Bump.

God Bless,
P12

[Lotar]

BTW- I'm a calvinist so I deny OSAS, but this particular argument against it isn't very effective.

ken
:confused: OSAS is a Calvinist doctrin. You might recognize it better as Preservation of the Saints. It is one of Calvin's 5 points.

[II Paradox II]

:confused: OSAS is a Calvinist doctrin. You might recognize it better as Preservation of the Saints. It is one of Calvin's 5 points.
Depends on how you use the term. If by OSAS you simply mean that, "God freely resolves from all Eternity, without consideration of the merits of man's grace, to call certain men to beatification and therefore to bestow on them graces which will infallibly secure the execution of the Divine Decree (ordo intentionis)" then yes, Calvin would be a believer in OSAS.

I am using the term to describe someone who believes that God gives them free-will to choose Him, but once that choice is made that the individual is eternally secure. Of this idea there are two variations. One posits that the individual is saved no matter what they do (thus it could be antinomian) while the other variant is more like calvinism in that one who falls away was never truly a believer in the first place.

Now, Perseverence of the Saints is different from these theories in a couple of ways:

1) Perseverance doctrine rests on a compatibilist account of free-will while OSAS as I gave it commonly uses a non-compatibilist account of free-will (if you have no idea what these are do a search on google or find a good philosophical dictionary).

2) Perseverance puts a heavy emphasis on "following through" to the end with final perseverance being a proof of salvation. This moral tinge was actually a recatholicizing of the more radical Lutheran doctrines of faith and salvation in that Calvin pointed explicitly to works as a barometer of faith whereas Luther advocated looking to cross for one's assurance. OSAS as I was using it can downplay these aspects significantly (especially the varieties propounded by Chafer and other dispensationalists.)

ken

[Lotar]

Whether you think some people inturprete it correctly or not is beside the point. OSAS is a Calvinist doctrin, and all the churches who hold it, get it from Calvin. OSAS is as far as I've seen a term used by people deriding the doctrin, or with little knowledge on the subject. Most evangelicals who hold this view, usually hold one or two more of Calvin's points.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but perseverance of the saints also means that just as we cannot choose Christ, we cannot choose to deny Him either. Evangelical doctrin of OSAS does not mean you go say a prayer and then your set no matter what for the rest of your life. If you go read it, you will ironically find that you are generalizing the belief the same way that others always do Calvinists. They get the doctrin directly from Calvin's five points.

[II Paradox II]

Whether you think some people inturprete it correctly or not is beside the point. how people define their terms or interpret them is not under my control. I was pointing out that there are different definitions, I wasn't saying that one was correct to the exclusion of others. Though if we hope to communicate, it helps to hold the same definitions of terms.

OSAS is a Calvinist doctrin, and all the churches who hold it, get it from Calvin. All of the versions I alluded to have their foundation in Calvinist thought (more particularly, Augustinian and thomistic thought.) though I wouldn't say they are holding to Calvinist doctrine in all cases.

OSAS is as far as I've seen a term used by people deriding the doctrin, or with little knowledge on the subject. Most evangelicals who hold this view, usually hold one or two more of Calvin's points. Usually it is a term of derision, but not always. I've seen people use it in a positive sense as well when they were advocating for a certain type of it. Like I said, if it used to describe the belief that God will infallibly acheive the salvation of those He chooses, then sure, I believe in OSAS too...

Now correct me if I'm wrong but perseverance of the saints also means that just as we cannot choose Christ, we cannot choose to deny Him either. I don't know if POTS would have anything to do whether you can choose God or not. It is logical deduction from any system that holds to a strong doctrine of election not based on foreseen merit. It is mostly a theory of assurance in that it encourages the believer to persevere to the end lest they find themselves on the wrong end of the judgement.

Evangelical doctrin of OSAS does not mean you go say a prayer and then your set no matter what for the rest of your life. Yes, this is a rather simplistic way of putting it. A better way of stating it is that certain theologies of salvation grant the theoretical possibility that a believer might be regenerate but either never show the visible fruit of that regeneration or that he might fall away but that God is still faithful to honor His end of the covenant. Even this definition is too simplistic, but it was better than the first one I gave. To quote Zane Hodges "The simple fact is that the New Testament never takes for granted that believers will see discipleship through to the end. And it never makes this kind of perseverance either a condition or a proof of final salvation from hell" (Free!, A. Hodges). This is something you would never hear a Calvinist say. Perseverance of the saints explicitly teaches exactly the opposite, that works through the course of one's lifetime are a proof of salvation.

If you go read it, you will ironically find that you are generalizing the belief the same way that others always do Calvinists. They get the doctrin directly from Calvin's five points. Well, this is a messageboard and it was a quick message about a subject I'm only peripherally involved in. If people want they can read works by Zane Hodges, Charles Ryrie or Chafer and find all the detail they might want. Again, I don't deny that their beliefs are related to Calvin's, just that they are the same as Calvin's.

ken

[Preachers12]

Peace be with you.

Ahem....sorry to disturb your conversation, but....

God Bless,
P12

[Lotar]

how people define their terms or interpret them is not under my control. I was pointing out that there are different definitions, I wasn't saying that one was correct to the exclusion of others. Though if we hope to communicate, it helps to hold the same definitions of terms.

All of the versions I alluded to have their foundation in Calvinist thought (more particularly, Augustinian and thomistic thought.) though I wouldn't say they are holding to Calvinist doctrine in all cases.

Usually it is a term of derision, but not always. I've seen people use it in a positive sense as well when they were advocating for a certain type of it. Like I said, if it used to describe the belief that God will infallibly acheive the salvation of those He chooses, then sure, I believe in OSAS too...

I don't know if POTS would have anything to do whether you can choose God or not. It is logical deduction from any system that holds to a strong doctrine of election not based on foreseen merit. It is mostly a theory of assurance in that it encourages the believer to persevere to the end lest they find themselves on the wrong end of the judgement.

Yes, this is a rather simplistic way of putting it. A better way of stating it is that certain theologies of salvation grant the theoretical possibility that a believer might be regenerate but either never show the visible fruit of that regeneration or that he might fall away but that God is still faithful to honor His end of the covenant. Even this definition is too simplistic, but it was better than the first one I gave. To quote Zane Hodges "The simple fact is that the New Testament never takes for granted that believers will see discipleship through to the end. And it never makes this kind of perseverance either a condition or a proof of final salvation from hell" (Free!, A. Hodges). This is something you would never hear a Calvinist say. Perseverance of the saints explicitly teaches exactly the opposite, that works through the course of one's lifetime are a proof of salvation.

Well, this is a messageboard and it was a quick message about a subject I'm only peripherally involved in. If people want they can read works by Zane Hodges, Charles Ryrie or Chafer and find all the detail they might want. Again, I don't deny that their beliefs are related to Calvin's, just that they are the same as Calvin's.

ken
Okay, we might have a misunderstanding here. I personally have no idea who the above listed authors are, but what I am talking about is what the common beliefs of OSAS in the non-denom and Baptist (I think) churches.

Anyways, I think you just have the problem of not understanding what is the common understanding of OSAS, and not wanting it to be the same as Calvin's belief. Everything you described as what a Calvinist would say are the same things that a person who understands OSAS would say, because they are the same thing. The churches who hold OSAS also hold Total Depravity and some form of Unconditional Election.

Your new here, so you'll learn that when someone here states OSAS, they are talking about Preservation of the Saints, and are usually refering to Calvinists.

Anyways, in trying to refute me, you've answered Preacher's question, so my work here is done :D

[II Paradox II]

Okay, we might have a misunderstanding here. I personally have no idea who the above listed authors are, but what I am talking about is what the common beliefs of OSAS in the non-denom and Baptist (I think) churches. ok. Just so you know, the authors I listed are major evangelical theologians of the dispensationalist stripe. All except for Hodges have written well known systematic theologies. Ryrie himself has his own study bible which you probably have seen (it's called the "Ryrie study Bible"). As such, they are good representatives of a particular school of theological thought.

Anyways, I think you just have the problem of not understanding what is the common understanding of OSAS, and not wanting it to be the same as Calvin's belief. Everything you described as what a Calvinist would say are the same things that a person who understands OSAS would say, because they are the same thing. The churches who hold OSAS also hold Total Depravity and some form of Unconditional Election. umm... well, I'll do my best to understand the way people use terms around here. I can't say I'll always use the same terms, but I'll try to give definitions for any disputed ones that may come up.

As for your last point, I'm not sure that would be true. My old church and the church I go to now both have held to OSAS and denied Unconditional Election (my church doesn't anymore...).

Your new here, so you'll learn that when someone here states OSAS, they are talking about Preservation of the Saints, and are usually refering to Calvinists. ok. It's not that big of a deal to me. I'll use the terms I like and everyone else can use what they like.

Anyways, in trying to refute me, you've answered Preacher's question, so my work here is done :D glad I could help.... =)

[Lanakila]

Where I come from they call OSAS Eternal Security. Its a strong doctrine in Baptist churches (not Freewill Baptists)

[A Brethren IN CHRIST]

John 10:25-29
john 15:16

have you read these verses

[Lotar]

Peace be with you.

This thought came to me earlier and I posted it in OBOB, but the more I thought about it, I wanted to hear the perspective from some who believe in OSAS. Not debating. Learning.

If we are saved once we make an open, true acceptance of Jesus as our personal Lord and saviour, does that mean that our divine gift of free will ends at that point?

I mean, if you believe that once you make that choice, you are then saved regardless of what you do, doesn't it deny our ability to later choose? To later exercise our gift of free will?

Thanks for any thoughts on this. Again, it is not an attack on OSAS. It is something I just thought about today and wanted to see others' opinions on. I may ask clarifying questions, but I will not debate or demean OSAS beliefs.

God Bless,
P12

I think everyone forgot about the OP :D

Let's try again. I'm not a OSAS guy, so someone else can answer.

[Preachers12]

Peace be with you.

A little bump since this got sidelined some. Still looking for thoughts.

God Bless,
P12

[Ken]

Preacher.. would you agree that when we are in heaven we can no longer sin? Would that violate your notion of what "free will" is?

[Ken]

As an aside Preacher, hopefully out of the conversation between lotar and Ken, you got the following:

Some people preach a doctrine of OSAS that teaches that a person might be truly saved, yet never do good works, and indeed might cease following Christ in any meaningful way altogether, and yet, still be saved. I think this is the definition of OSAS that Ken wants to stay clear of, and, I believe rightly so. Unfortunately this caricature is often portrayed as OSAS, when it is not really a fair representation of the belief at all. And even worse, some people actually believe this is the case, and live lives no different from that of an atheistic pagan. They too fail to understand the doctrine.

These issues really come to the forefront in what has come to be known as the Lordship Controversy (do a google search), a battle that has raged especially between Zane Hodges, Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, Charles Stanley vs. people like John MacArthur and Michael Horton. The non-Lordship position (Hodges and company) teach, as you might expect, that Jesus does not have to be Lord over your life in order for you to be saved. They feel (simplistically putting it) that this would be adding works to a grace-only gospel.

The Lordship position strongly affirms that once a person is truly regenerated they can never be lost, but that such a person will indeed bear fruit in keeping with their repentance, albeit never perfectly in this life. Such a person will want to obey God, not in order to be saved, but because they are saved. And such a person will never be lost. It is this latter definition of OSAS that I would want to affirm, along with Ken.

[Preachers12]

Ken, Peace be with you.

Thanks for the clarifications on OSAS. I am pretty familiar with the "battlegrounds" there, but I didn't know some of that history. Thanks.

As for being able to sin in heaven - I see where you are trying to go with that, but it doesn't fit the context. Regardless, if we were able to choose in the afterlife, our penalty for it could be equated with that of Satan - we are cast out. I don't know. Satan was an angel, not a human. But let's stop this here, I don't want to take this into a discussion on what it is like in heaven.

The whole point of the OP is trying to determine how those who view salvation as an event (as opposed to a process) account for free will.

God Bless,
P12

[Ken]

I view salvation as an event, and I think that the only being in the universe that truly has complete and total free will is God.... the rest of us do in fact make choices, but not in the Libertarian definition of free will... rather I view Combatibilism to more in accord with the Bible's statements re God's absolute sovereignty over all of creation....

(Prov 16:9 NKJV) A man's heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.

(Prov 16:33 NKJV) The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD.

[Preachers12]

I view salvation as an event, and I think that the only being in the universe that truly has complete and total free will is God.... the rest of us do in fact make choices, but not in the Libertarian definition of free will... rather I view Combatibilism to more in accord with the Bible's statements re God's absolute sovereignty over all of creation....

(Prov 16:9 NKJV) A man's heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.

(Prov 16:33 NKJV) The lot is cast into the lap, But its every decision is from the LORD.
Ken, Peace be with you.

Let me clarify. If then salvation is an event rather than a process, I assume that you view it as an event which is a free gift of God, that is, a grace given to us by God which we cannot earn. Is that what you are saying?

If so, then is that grace, or gift from God, any greater than the gifts/graces of free will and intellect which He gave to us in creating us? Or does the event/gift of being saved then somehow negate the gift of free will?

Am I making sense?

Let's see. These are the graces/gifts from God in question here: free will and intellect (given to us as creations of God) and salvation (given to us through our faith in and acceptance of Christ's sacrifice).

So we have three gifts from God, none of which we can earn or merit. The first two are given with being created, so we get those regardless of faith. The other, salvation, we get through faith (let's assume that we do not exercise free will or our intellect in developing our faith, but rather that God leads us to it).

So once we then accept the gift of salvation, does that then negate our ability to use the gift of free will and give up our salvation?

God Bless,
P12

[Ken]

Peace be with you as well….

Grace must first supercede or you could say, effectually alter the fallen individual’s free will, in order for a person to ever choose God. That is simply to say: Regeneration precedes faith. The unregenerate person will also exercise their free will, albeit continuously in opposition to God. This will be the case until (and if) God regenerates their heart by taking out their heart of stone and giving them a heart of flesh, and opens their blinded eyes to the beauty of Christ. So yes, it (grace leading to salvation) is a free gift we cannot earn, and God gives out this gift sovereignly, according to His good pleasure, just like He governs the rest of creation.

(Isa 46:10 NASB) Declaring the end from the beginning And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure';
(Phil 2:13 NASB) for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
(Rom 9:16 NASB) So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
(Rom 9:18 NASB) So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

So the other gifts (though I would not consider them to be gifts per se, but rather part of general creation, that these 2, ie free will and intellect, are attributes of the human, and are such simply due to our being created in the image of God) you mention, intellect and will, are both defined and exercised according to our nature, and our nature is radically fallen, thus our will and intellect are radically fallen.
(Eph 2:3 NASB) Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

After writing this, I thought I could do much better by you by consulting one of the catechisms, though there are similarities in what I have written and what appears in Westminster, perhaps it will help you to understand the Reformed view of the relationship between God’s sovereignty and man’s will, and, of course, what I take to be the biblical view on such things. That is to say Westminster has authority only insofar as it reflects the teaching of the Scriptures. It just happens to do this very very well.

Chapter III; Of God’s Eternal Decree

I. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass:[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]
1. Psa. 33:11: Eph. 1:11: Heb. 6:17
2. Psa. 5:4; James 1:13-14; I John 1:5; see Hab. 1:13
3. Acts 2:23; 4:27-28: Matt. 17:12; John 19:11; Prov. 16:33

Chapter IX, Of Free Will
I. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good, or evil.[1]
1. James 1:13-14; 4:7; Deut. 30:19; Isa. 7:11-12; Matt. 17:12; John 5:40

II. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God;[2] but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.[3]
2. Eccl. 7:29; Gen. 1:26, 31; Col. 3:10
3. Gen. 2:16-17; 3:6, 17

III. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation:[4] so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good,[5] and dead in sin,[6] is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.[7]
4. Rom. 5:5; 8:7-8; John 6:44, 65; 15:5
5. Rom. 3:9-10, 12, 23
6. Eph. 2:1, 5; Col 2:13
7. John 3:3, 5-6; 6:44, 65; I Cor. 2:14; Titus 3:3-5

IV. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin;[8] and, by his grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good;[9] yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.[10]
8. Col. 1:13; John 8:34, 36; Rom. 6:6-7
9. Phil. 2:13; Rom. 6:14, 17-19, 22
10. Gal. 5:17; Rom. 7:14-25; I John 1:8, 10

V. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to good alone, in the state of glory only.[11]
11. Heb. 12:23; I John 3:2; Jude 1:24; Rev. 21:27

Lastly, Chapter X; Of Effectual Calling
I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to call,[1] by his Word and Spirit,[2] out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;[3] enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,[4] taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh;[5] renewing their wills, and, by his almighty power, determining them to that which is good,[6] and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:[7] yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.[8]
1. Acts 13:48; Rom. 4:28, 30; 11:7; Eph. 1:5, 11; II Tim. 1:9-10
2. II Thess. 2:13-14; James 1:18; II Cor. 3:3, 6; I Cor. 2:12
3. II Tim. 1:9-10; I Peter 2:9; Rom 8:2; Eph. 2:1-10
4. Acts 26:18; I Cor. 2:10, 12; Eph. 1:17-18; II Cor. 4:6
5. Ezek. 36:26
6. Ezek. 11:19; 36:27; Deut. 30:6; John 3:5; Titus 3:5; I Peter 1:23
7. John 6:44-45; Acts 16:14
8. Psa. 110:3; John 6:37; Matt. 11:28; Rev. 22:17; Rom. 6:16-18; Eph. 2:8; Phil 1:29

II. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man,[9] who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit,[10] he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.[11]
9. II Tim. 1:9; Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 9:11
10. I Cor. 2:14; Rom. 8:7-9; Titus 3:4-5
11. John 6:37; Ezek. 36:27; I John 3:9; 5:1

Blessings

[ThatOneGuy]

Tell me if I am wrong on this. In summary of parts of Chapter IX in the last post, it seems that there are two different ways of looking at the "free" in "free will." These would be:

1. Man is free to do/think whatever he wants.
2. Man is freed to do/think what is pleasing to God. Free

This is a difference in how we use the word "free." In the first sense, we use the word to imply inherent liberty; in the second, freedom is used in contrast with bondage. I believe in the latter. It is kind of like the chicken/egg argument. Can we have freedom without first being enslaved?

From Romans:

"But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness." (Rom. 6:17-18, ESV)

Presumably, God does the setting free. The sticking point for most people seems to be how God does this. Some (not Calvinists) say that, like a Christmas gift, He offers a free gift (of freedom) and some take it. Others (Calvinists) would say that we don't choose whether or not we want the gift, like if a person gave us the gift of CPR.

Bringing in OSAS, I believe that OSAS lines up pretty well with free will, if we say "Once Saved (i.e. from the bondage of sin) Always Saved." However, I am probably taking a term not historically used in Reformed theology and reinterpreting it for that forum.

Hope that doesn't muddy up the waters too much ;)

/p

[Serapha]

Peace be with you.

This thought came to me earlier and I posted it in OBOB, but the more I thought about it, I wanted to hear the perspective from some who believe in OSAS. Not debating. Learning.

If we are saved once we make an open, true acceptance of Jesus as our personal Lord and saviour, does that mean that our divine gift of free will ends at that point?

I mean, if you believe that once you make that choice, you are then saved regardless of what you do, doesn't it deny our ability to later choose? To later exercise our gift of free will?

Thanks for any thoughts on this. Again, it is not an attack on OSAS. It is something I just thought about today and wanted to see others' opinions on. I may ask clarifying questions, but I will not debate or demean OSAS beliefs.

God Bless,
P12
Hi there!

I believe in the Doctrine of Eternal Security.

So many people have the view of "once saved, always saved" as being un-scriptural. Many think that the doctrine of eternal salvation means that you simply say the words "I have sinned and seek repentance" and that gives them eternal security without any repercussions. Then, the belief is that the eternally saved sinner can go out and do whatever type of sin they wish and it does not keep them out of heaven.

That is a false understanding. It is termed "fire insurance".

Being saved doesn't make you immune to sin... being saved for eternity is like being a growing cucumber on a vine... you just keep growing and doing the same things every day until one day, someone picks you off the vine, lifts you out of the dirt... and tries to make something out of you.


They dip you in the brine and you come out a pickle.... never to be a cucumber again. That dip changes you into a whole new product. Now.... that pickle can serve as a pickle, or it can just rot.... there's a choice.


No... being saved... you still have free will.


~malaka~