Arguments for OSAS

[KingJ]

I have copied and pasted a post from this thread Can Salvation Be lost?. I accept that the thread originator wanted the thread closed, but I would like this post to be better discussed as I feel no anti-OSAS believer has taken a worthwhile stab at it.

Logical arguments for OSAS

1. Criminal next to Jesus on cross - Instant salvation

Instant and / or four hour long conversion on the cross beside Jesus. Then promised eternal bliss. No ''works'' required.

2. Criminal next to Jesus on the cross - no works, no risk

Guaranteed heaven with no servitude, whilst those who replicate his devotion and ''add'' years of servitude to God's kingdom, do so at the risk of eternal ex-communication. This implies God is partial. God is not partial Acts 10:34. Impartiality is wicked. God is not wicked Psalm 136:1. An anti-OSAS belief implies God is partial and wicked.

3. Lucifer - Eternally removed from heaven

Lucifer, the fallen angels and all the wicked who reject Jesus will go to hell for all eternity. The scriptural theory is that there is no redemption plan for the fallen angels as they will never desire true repentance. Do we believe God made a mistake casting them out for all eternity? If we believe God did not, then likewise He is able to graft a saint in. IE God does not make mistakes. An anti-Osas belief implies God is an idiot who makes mistakes.

4. The process of being born again

Jesus laid His life down for us, this is the greatest act of love possible John 15:13. For a human to ever be grafted into the vine they need to have an equal depth of intent. We see this in Matt 16:24, Rev 2:10 and in all the examples in history of tyrants demanding we bow the knee and reject Jesus. So, if God cannot be sufficiently happy with us reaching the required depth of intent required for salvation, how is it that we are then confident with His sacrifice? God judges our hearts and minds at depths that only He can Jer 17:9-12. An anti-OSAS belief mocks the very core of Christianity and our union with God.

IE, if our ''best action'' is not good enough for God, how is it that ''one'' action from Jesus is sufficient for God.

I will raise more logical arguments if I see people want to discuss.

Please I beg of you, NO spamming by copying and pasting scripture without explanations. This thread is for ''discussion''.

 

[KingJ]

@Butch5 replied with the following:

1. I don't see an argument for OSAS here. If we accept your premise that the thief was instantly saved. It doesn't prove that others can't be lost
2. This argument is the the fallacy of "Hasty Generalization". However, Even if God was partial (He's not) this doesn't even address the OSAS issue.
3. This is the fallacy of "Unwarranted Assumption". You have no way of knowing if fallen angels will ever desire true repentance. And, there is no OSAS argument here.
4. Again, there is no OSAS argument here.

I replied with:

1. If others can be lost, God would be partial. You believe God is partial?
2. If we who do more for God, more then the criminal next to Jesus did. Do so at the risk of being ''lost'', it would make God partial. You believe God is partial? I see you say He is not, yet you disagree with my point. Please explain.....How it is that God says to person A, you will die after this single decision and go to eternal bliss and then to person B, you will stay on earth and serve me for fifty years at the risk of losing your salvation and going to hell for all eternity / or as with your belief, utterly annihilation. Gee God, no partiality there whatsoever......
3. What nonsense. Scripture is crystal clear that fallen angels will go to hell for all eternity. The OSAS argument is that if God can remove beings for all eternity, He can accept beings for all eternity.
4. Seriously? Well then I guess you believe even if we make it to heaven, God's love may run out and one-day we will be booted from heaven.

He then replied with:

1. You're basing you argument on the idea that God determines when people die. You'd have to establish that from Scripture. But, even so, that doesn't make God partial. Everyone is saved on the same basis, faith.
2. That may be so, but that's not what you said, You said no fallen angel would ever desire true repentance. You have no way of knowing that.
3. Sure, and He does. However, accepting people for all eternity doesn't mean they can't be lost before they get there.
4. What does this have to do with OSAS?

________________________________________________________

The argument of the criminal next to Jesus on the cross is a valid argument and has been raised as support for OSAS for eons. Why would you say it is not support for OSAS?

 

[KingJ]

@Downunder replied to point 1 with:

1. As for the thief on the cross nowhere does Jesus claim that he would be in heaven with Jesus - he promised him that he would be in Eden (a park, a garden) but again no reference to this being immediately.

to which I replied:

2 You are completely distorting and removing the significance of the passage of Jesus's interaction with the criminal next to Him on the cross.

__________________________________

In all honesty @Downunder I can't understand how you think this is an acceptable answer. Can you please better explain what you mean. Do you believe there was a possibility that the criminal could still go to hell?

 

[KingJ]

@Butch5

You said the following:

1. You're basing you argument on the idea that God determines when people die. You'd have to establish that from Scripture. But, even so, that doesn't make God partial. Everyone is saved on the same basis, faith.
2. That may be so, but that's not what you said, You said no fallen angel would ever desire true repentance. You have no way of knowing that.
3. Sure, and He does. However, accepting people for all eternity doesn't mean they can't be lost before they get there.
4. What does this have to do with OSAS?

1. I guess I don't understand your actual belief. I thought you said you were anti-OSAS. How does one lose faith? You either have faith or you don't. The opposite to OSAS is works based salvation. You have a third option? Please explain it.

After Matt 16:16-17, Peter may have denied Jesus, but it is scientifically impossible for him to have lost faith in who Jesus was. Maybe if he became a mental vegetable he could wander who Jesus was. Now as a Christian, we all have an equal revelation of Jesus according to Paul in 1 Cor 12:3.

2. I said 'the scriptural theory' / generally accepted rule of thumb, for angels being eternally doomed is the fact that they will never truly desire repentance. If you have a better one, please share it.

3. If you properly understand point 1 and 2, you would see that if one can be lost before they get there, God would be guilty of partiality. Please also understand that the underlying fact in point 3 is the fact that ''God does not make mistakes''. Jesus did not sit down with Judas as He did with Peter in Matt 16:16-17.

4. If our best is not good enough, what makes you think any future works will be?

 

[Butch5]

@Butch5 replied with the following:

1. I don't see an argument for OSAS here. If we accept your premise that the thief was instantly saved. It doesn't prove that others can't be lost
2. This argument is the the fallacy of "Hasty Generalization". However, Even if God was partial (He's not) this doesn't even address the OSAS issue.
3. This is the fallacy of "Unwarranted Assumption". You have no way of knowing if fallen angels will ever desire true repentance. And, there is no OSAS argument here.
4. Again, there is no OSAS argument here.

I replied with:

1. If others can be lost, God would be partial. You believe God is partial?
2. If we who do more for God, more then the criminal next to Jesus did. Do so at the risk of being ''lost'', it would make God partial. You believe God is partial? I see you say He is not, yet you disagree with my point. Please explain.....How it is that God says to person A, you will die after this single decision and go to eternal bliss and then to person B, you will stay on earth and serve me for fifty years at the risk of losing your salvation and going to hell for all eternity / or as with your belief, utterly annihilation. Gee God, no partiality there whatsoever......
3. What nonsense. Scripture is crystal clear that fallen angels will go to hell for all eternity. The OSAS argument is that if God can remove beings for all eternity, He can accept beings for all eternity.
4. Seriously? Well then I guess you believe even if we make it to heaven, God's love may run out and one-day we will be booted from heaven.

He then replied with:

1. You're basing you argument on the idea that God determines when people die. You'd have to establish that from Scripture. But, even so, that doesn't make God partial. Everyone is saved on the same basis, faith.
2. That may be so, but that's not what you said, You said no fallen angel would ever desire true repentance. You have no way of knowing that.
3. Sure, and He does. However, accepting people for all eternity doesn't mean they can't be lost before they get there.
4. What does this have to do with OSAS?

________________________________________________________

Butch, you are being terribly evasive. Please deal with the actual points made. Stop trolling the arguments presented.

The argument of the criminal next to Jesus on the cross is a valid argument and has been raised as support for OSAS for eons. Yet you don't see an argument for OSAS? That is the definition of trolling or utter lack of logical reasoning.

Every line from you is absolute evasion.

I asked you to provide some logical arguments. Instead you've just reiterated the same illogical arguments. That suggests to me that you don't actually have one.

The thief on the cross in no way proves OSAS. Rather, your argument is based in an assumption you've made. I asked that you validate that assumption. You haven't. That you haven't suggests to me that you can't.

As I said, your original post had several logical fallacies in it. That others may have used the same illogical arguments does not validate them.

If you're serious about discussion please explain how the thief proves the OSAS argument.

 

[Butch5]

1. I guess I don't understand your actual belief. I thought you said you were anti-OSAS. How does one lose faith? You either have faith or you don't. The opposite to OSAS is works based salvation. You have a third option? Please explain it.

After Matt 16:16-17, Peter may have denied Jesus, but it is scientifically impossible for him to have lost faith in who Jesus was. Maybe if he became a mental vegetable he could wander who Jesus was. Now as a Christian, we all have an equal revelation of Jesus according to Paul in 1 Cor 12:3.

2. I said 'the scriptural theory' / generally accepted rule of thumb, for angels being eternally doomed is the fact that they will never truly desire repentance. If you have a better one, please share it.

3. If you properly understand point 1 and 2, you would see that if one can be lost before they get there, God would be guilty of partiality. Please also understand that the underlying fact in point 3 is the fact that ''God does not make mistakes''. Jesus did not sit down with Judas as He did with Peter in Matt 16:16-17.

4. If our best is not good enough, what makes you think any future works will be?

1. Yes, one either has faith or they don't. How does one lose faith? By rejecting Christ. You say the opposite of OSAS is works based salvstion. However, you don't explain what you mean by that. I can only assume you mean that something one does. If that is what you mean then, yes, there are things one must do.

2. Again, you have no way of knowing what fallen Angel's will desire. Therefore to claim the are doomed on that basis is a fallacy. One can say they're doomed because of their actions, that's fine. However, when one presumes to read the mind of another the argument becomes fallacious.

3. There is no partiality in that argument. Partiality is showing favor to one person over another. If the requirement for everyone to be saved is the same then there is no partiality. The thief didn't get saved in any way different than anyone else. He had faith in Christ.

4. Why do you assume our best is not good enough?

 

[Admon Mikha'el]

I have to agree that all the arguments for OSAS ares totally illogical and unbiblical....Show scripture for OSAS and leave logic out of it. Since there is no logic presented it should be no problem...............

 

[Brother-Paul]

I have copied and pasted a post from this thread Can Salvation Be lost?. I accept that the thread originator wanted the thread closed, but I would like this post to be better discussed as I feel no anti-OSAS believer has taken a worthwhile stab at it.

Logical arguments for OSAS

1. Criminal next to Jesus on cross - Instant salvation

Instant and / or four hour long conversion on the cross beside Jesus. Then promised eternal bliss. No ''works'' required.

2. Criminal next to Jesus on the cross - no works, no risk

Guaranteed heaven with no servitude, whilst those who replicate his devotion and ''add'' years of servitude to God's kingdom, do so at the risk of eternal ex-communication. This implies God is partial. God is not partial Acts 10:34. Impartiality is wicked. God is not wicked Psalm 136:1. An anti-OSAS belief implies God is partial and wicked.

3. Lucifer - Eternally removed from heaven

Lucifer, the fallen angels and all the wicked who reject Jesus will go to hell for all eternity. The scriptural theory is that there is no redemption plan for the fallen angels as they will never desire true repentance. Do we believe God made a mistake casting them out for all eternity? If we believe God did not, then likewise He is able to graft a saint in. IE God does not make mistakes. An anti-Osas belief implies God is an idiot who makes mistakes.

4. The process of being born again

Jesus laid His life down for us, this is the greatest act of love possible John 15:13. For a human to ever be grafted into the vine they need to have an equal depth of intent. We see this in Matt 16:24, Rev 2:10 and in all the examples in history of tyrants demanding we bow the knee and reject Jesus. So, if God cannot be sufficiently happy with us reaching the required depth of intent required for salvation, how is it that we are then confident with His sacrifice? God judges our hearts and minds at depths that only He can Jer 17:9-12. An anti-OSAS belief mocks the very core of Christianity and our union with God.

IE, if our ''best action'' is not good enough for God, how is it that ''one'' action from Jesus is sufficient for God.

I will raise more logical arguments if I see people want to discuss.

Please I beg of you, NO spamming by copying and pasting scripture without explanations. This thread is for ''discussion''.

Seems we are all entitled to your opinion KJ.

1 & 2 - The thief next to Jesus was saved because, he pleaded with Jesus to be remembered when our Lord enters His Kingdom.

Nothing to do with OSAS, He committed himself to Christ and then died. He pleaded to be remembered, he was sorry. Then he died.

This is an example more of last minute salvation, nothing to do with OSAS whilst still living.

3 - Lucifer was kicked out of heaven - OLAL hell awaits

4 - As a born again from above believer we are grafted into the vine, but we can be removed and thrown into the eternal fire.

John 15 is a beautiful message, it is also a warning, there are two views, one is related to whilst we are on earth, the second is what happens at judgement.

Which ever the message is, we are grafted in when we are born anew, if we do not bare fruit, this is baring fruit not working for it, the sap will stop, the branch will witrher, the fruit will not show, we will be cut off and thrown into the eternal fire in hell.

 

[complete]

Logical arguments for OSAS

1. Criminal next to Jesus on cross - Instant salvation
Instant and / or four hour long conversion on the cross beside Jesus. Then promised eternal bliss. No ''works'' required.

2. Criminal next to Jesus on the cross - no works, no risk
Guaranteed heaven with no servitude, whilst those who replicate his devotion and ''add'' years of servitude to God's kingdom, do so at the risk of eternal ex-communication. This implies God is partial. God is not partial Acts 10:34. Impartiality is wicked. God is not wicked Psalm 136:1. An anti-OSAS belief implies God is partial and wicked.

'And a superscription also was written over Him
in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him,
saying," If thou be Christ, save thyself and us."
But the other answering rebuked him, saying,
"Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds:
but this man hath done nothing amiss."
And he said unto Jesus,
"Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom.
And Jesus said unto him, "Verily I say unto thee,
To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."
(Luke 23:38-43)

Hello @KingJ,

This man believed that Jesus was the 'Christ', the Messiah. He believed what was written above the Lord on the cross, 'This is the King of the Jews'. He acknowledged His Lordship. He believed that the Lord Jesus would come into His Kingdom, and would therefore be in a position to remember him: which indicates that he believed in the resurrection of the dead. This is what his words testify. No wonder the Lord said to Him that he would be with Him in paradise.'

Where is paradise, is it not where the tree of life is said to be, in the New Jerusalem which will come down out of heaven to the earth, described in (Revelation 2:7) as the garden of God. It is there that the Overcomers of faith will find their place. This man was an Overcomer, who believed God, and declared his faith openly in the direst of circumstances.

This is perhaps proof that salvation is not conditional, but not that salvation cannot be lost. Though I believe you know that I do believe that the gift of life, once given, will not be taken from the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. I just don't believe that the record of the thief on the cross provides proof of that in itself.

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[complete]

Why do you assume our best is not good enough?

Hello @Butch5,

Are you asking that question in regard to one who does not have a saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? If so, then I would refer you to Romans 8:7-8,

'Because the carnal mind is enmity against God:
for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.'

I do not think that question would be asked concerning one who has a saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, for he has died with Christ, been buried, quickened and raised with Him, and now walks in Him before the Father in newness of life; as one who has been raised from the dead.

'For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
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.
I do not frustrate the grace of God:
for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.'
(Gal 2:19-21)

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Brother-Paul]

'And a superscription also was written over Him
in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him,
saying," If thou be Christ, save thyself and us."
But the other answering rebuked him, saying,
"Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds:
but this man hath done nothing amiss."
And he said unto Jesus,
"Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom.
And Jesus said unto him, "Verily I say unto thee,
To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."
(Luke 23:38-43)


This man believed that Jesus was the 'Christ', the Messiah. He believed what was written above the Lord on the cross, 'This is the King of the Jews'. He acknowledged His Lordship. He believed that the Lord Jesus would come into His Kingdom, and would therefore be in a position to remember him: which indicates that he believed in the resurrection of the dead. This is what his words testify. No wonder the Lord said to Him that he would be with Him in paradise.'

Very well put sister.

This is perhaps proof that salvation is not conditional, but not that salvation cannot be lost.

I fully agree thus far, but do not believe in OSAS.

John 15 clearly states those grafted in, that do not bear fruit, will wither, they will be cut out, they will end up in the fire, the eternal fire.

Shalom

 

[complete]

John 15 clearly states those grafted in, that do not bear fruit, will wither, they will be cut out, they will end up in the fire, the eternal fire.

Shalom

'I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
Every branch in me that beareth not fruit He taketh away:
and every branch that beareth fruit,
He purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
Abide in me, and I in you.
As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine;
no more can ye, except ye abide in Me.
I am the vine, ye are the branches:
He that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit:
for without me ye can do nothing.
If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered;
and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
If ye abide in Me, and My words abide in you,
ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.
Herein is My Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit;
so shall ye be My disciples.'
(John 15:1-8)

Hello @Brother-Paul,

You refer to John 15 and the Lord's words concerning Himself as The TRUE vine, in contrast with the type and shadow of the Old Testament. In the Old Testament the vine represents Israel, 'Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt' (Psalm 80:8), and in Isaiah 5:1-7. Israel failed to fulfil the glorious purpose of their calling, but in this as in all else Christ is the answer and the fulfilment. He is the True vine of which Israel was the failing shadow, and the 'husbandman' of Isaiah 5.

The whole point of this metaphor, is fruit-bearing. To bear fruit, it was necessary that His disciples should abide in Him. The one who did not 'abide' was Judas, he was the branch that would be 'cast forth' and 'wither'. The Lord had announced that He was not going to be with them long, and these were some of the last words that He spoke to them before His death, and resurrection. Their ministry, 'as those that heard Him', was about to begin, all that they needed was the promise of the Father, which they would receive as their endowment at Pentecost. The fruit that they were called upon to bear would be souls saved for the Kingdom, to make up the believing remnant both in the land, and among the dispersion. A work of God with them as His instruments.

I do not believe this can be used to prove that salvation can be lost, for Judas was not a believer, but 'The Son of Perdition'. He was not attached to the Vine.

This is a feeble attempt at best, I know, but it was worth a try.
I hope you will except it in the spirit in which it was written.

With love in Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[PloughBoy]

Why use OT materials to convey a New Covenant truth. Using examples of OT characters as if they where :"New Creatures in Christ" for The Gospels The Synoptics, are mostly the recording of Old Testament events. that had transpired before The New Covenant came into play. For the "Tester' had not yet died nor had HE Rose from the Grave and ascended upon "The Throne" do you really understand the "New Testament" writings especially The Gospels, the Synoptics? Because your expression, will lead many into a state of puzzle. For everything the Disciple did in the Gospels concerning their missions, Jesus Commanded them through His "Divinity" and not out of His Humanity"

 

[KingJ]

I asked you to provide some logical arguments. Instead you've just reiterated the same illogical arguments. That suggests to me that you don't actually have one.

I have responded to your inability to digest the points made, you still hold to the first points you made....and now throw in insults. The arguments were not illogical. You have not come close to proving they are. You seem to think running in circles is how to discuss.

The thief on the cross in no way proves OSAS. Rather, your argument is based in an assumption you've made. I asked that you validate that assumption. You haven't. That you haven't suggests to me that you can't.

Quote the post and the ''assumption''. Explain yourself. Stop copying and pasting your troll like lines you have saved somewhere.

As I said, your original post had several logical fallacies in it. That others may have used the same illogical arguments does not validate them.

You have not made your case. If you make a claim, prove it. Otherwise you just come across like a troll.

If you're serious about discussion please explain how the thief proves the OSAS argument.

Re-read the first point made in the OP, the point made in post # 2, narrated point 1. Quote these and then explain your disagreement.

I propose, you take a break, read the full point made, chew on it, then come back and try discuss without coming across like a troll.

 

[Waggles]

The Windmills Of Your Mind
Round, like a circle in a spiral
Like a wheel within a wheel.
Never ending or beginning,
On an ever spinning reel
Like a snowball down a mountain
Or a carnival balloon
Like a carousel that's turning
Running rings around the moon
chorus
Like a clock whose hands are sweeping
Past the minutes on its face
And the world is like an apple
Whirling silently in space
Like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind
last stanza
Like a circle in a spiral
Like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning,
On an ever spinning reel
As the images unwind
Like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind

Songwriters: Legrand Michel Jean / Bergman Alan / Bergman Marilyn © 1969

 

[KingJ]

1. Yes, one either has faith or they don't. How does one lose faith? By rejecting Christ. .

How do you lose faith by rejecting Jesus?

You say the opposite of OSAS is works based salvstion. However, you don't explain what you mean by that. I can only assume you mean that something one does. If that is what you mean then, yes, there are things one must do.

I did not think that needed an explanation. Either we are saved by grace or we are saved by works. Grace and works can not be mentioned together. You believe they can?

2. Again, you have no way of knowing what fallen Angel's will desire. Therefore to claim the are doomed on that basis is a fallacy. One can say they're doomed because of their actions, that's fine. However, when one presumes to read the mind of another the argument becomes fallacious.

I feel you either A did not read or B did not grasp what I wrote. Please re-read what I wrote.

3. There is no partiality in that argument. Partiality is showing favor to one person over another. I.

How can you not see partiality?

If God ordains a path to eternal bliss for me that is not the same as for you, that is the definition of partiality.

You say ''faith'' alone for person A and B. You are being evasive. If as you said, you believe that ''faith can be lost''', then you should certainly grasp the partiality...???

Using ''your'' faith example, which I disagree with, I will explain.

Person A, Criminal next to Jesus. Has faith for four hours then given ''ETERNAL BLISS''. Person B, lets say Peter. Has faith for four hours and is then asked of God to serve Him on earth for many more years. All this AT THE RISK OF LOSING HIS FAITH AND GOING TO ETERNAL HELL..

No, no partiality there whatsoever. '''''Troll like response incoming??? This Mike Tyson knockout punch is not real, let me look at the wall and ignore this'''''. I say this because this is the fifth time I have explained this to you, repeated myself and you have yet to actually deal with it.

 

[KingJ]

4. Why do you assume our best is not good enough?

??? Butch are you losing your mind??? You are saying our best is not good enough. Please re-read the posts.

 

[KingJ]

I have to agree that all the arguments for OSAS ares totally illogical and unbiblical....Show scripture for OSAS and leave logic out of it. Since there is no logic presented it should be no problem...............

The problem is that many do not understand scripture. Cherry picked and parroted scripture, does not always equal truth. A Christian has been given common sense and a working brain. God forbid we not use it.

 

[KingJ]

Seems we are all entitled to your opinion KJ.

. I would not call it an opinion. I have given scripture and an explanation. Merely looking for a logical rebuttal.

What frustrates me with certain members (@Butch5) is that they assume I am beyond correction or ''stupid''. I can be pushy, but am certainly open to correction and do consider myself a little above average intelligence.

The arguments I have raised in this OP are very common to the OSAS discussion. These were raised a few years ago on another Christian forum site and discussed at length. When one 'grasps' the question being raised on the criminal next to Jesus, the topic and need for discussion becomes crystal clear. I do not feel those here (@Butch5) have yet properly grasped the point being made.

1 & 2 - The thief next to Jesus was saved because, he pleaded with Jesus to be remembered when our Lord enters His Kingdom.

Nothing to do with OSAS, He committed himself to Christ and then died. He pleaded to be remembered, he was sorry. Then he died.

This is an example more of last minute salvation, nothing to do with OSAS whilst still living.

It has everything to do with OSAS when you consider the fact that God is impartial.

If God gives one person a four hour window at eternal bliss, He has to do that with all to be impartial. Please also see the example to @Butch5 in post # 16.

3 - Lucifer was kicked out of heaven - OLAL hell awaits.

True, but please grasp the ''elephant in the room''. He was kicked out ''permanently''. Eternally removed. The argument is, that if God has the ''IQ'' to permanently remove someone, He too as the ''IQ'' to permanently accept someone. Note how the revelation of Jesus given to Peter in Matt 16:16-17 was ''NOT'' given to Judas.

4 - As a born again from above believer we are grafted into the vine, but we can be removed and thrown into the eternal fire.

No we cannot. Jesus says of such people ''He never knew them'' Matt 7:21-22.

Which ever the message is, we are grafted in when we are born anew, if we do not bare fruit, this is baring fruit not working for it, the sap will stop, the branch will witrher, the fruit will not show, we will be cut off and thrown into the eternal fire in hell.

Imagine saying that to your wife after she has just married you. ''Dear honey / sugar / baby, I know you just signed your entire life away in dedication and devotion to me, until death do us part, sickness and health, better or worse....but I must warn you.....if you do NOT WASH THE DISHES consistently, I will divorce you and sentence you to DEATH BY FIRE'''. ''Oh by the way, I love you so much, I did not hesitate to marry you''.

 

[KingJ]

'And a superscription also was written over Him
in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him,
saying," If thou be Christ, save thyself and us."
But the other answering rebuked him, saying,
"Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds:
but this man hath done nothing amiss."
And he said unto Jesus,
"Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom.
And Jesus said unto him, "Verily I say unto thee,
To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."
(Luke 23:38-43)

Hello @KingJ,

This man believed that Jesus was the 'Christ', the Messiah. He believed what was written above the Lord on the cross, 'This is the King of the Jews'. He acknowledged His Lordship. He believed that the Lord Jesus would come into His Kingdom, and would therefore be in a position to remember him: which indicates that he believed in the resurrection of the dead. This is what his words testify. No wonder the Lord said to Him that he would be with Him in paradise.'

Where is paradise, is it not where the tree of life is said to be, in the New Jerusalem which will come down out of heaven to the earth, described in (Revelation 2:7) as the garden of God. It is there that the Overcomers of faith will find their place. This man was an Overcomer, who believed God, and declared his faith openly in the direst of circumstances.

Hi Complete

Thanks for your contribution.

I agree with what you have stated with regards to him being saved because he was able to call Jesus Lord. We just have to grasp in addition and always add the explanation that such a faith is given by God Matt 16:16-17, 1 Cor 12:3. Nobody can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. We then need to add / grasp the fact that such a revelation is not given to every person. Only those chosen. Those chosen are the whomsoever will repent Psalm 51:17, draw close to Jesus by stopping sins James 4:8, lay their lives down Rev 2:10, carry their cross and deny themselves Matt 16:24.

Which means, if this criminal knew Jesus as Lord, He was ''chosen''. His heart was judged Jer 17:9-11 and passed.

This is perhaps proof that salvation is not conditional, but not that salvation cannot be lost. Though I believe you know that I do believe that the gift of life, once given, will not be taken from the believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. I just don't believe that the record of the thief on the cross provides proof of that in itself.

It is proof salvation cannot be lost. This incidence puts the reader at a T-junction. Namely, either OSAS is real or God is partial. God is not partial Acts 10:34, which means OSAS is real. I explain the partiality in my OP, at the bottom of post # 16 to butch and post # 19.

I am still waiting for all anti-OSAS members to grasp they are at this T-junction @Butch5 @Downunder @Brother-Paul.