Arguments for OSAS

[Butch5]

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.

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

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

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.

I can see you're not going address the fallacies nor the assumptions. I've pointed them and even named them so you could look them up and see what they are. Instead you just claim they're not fallacies.

In your original post you claimed to have hundreds of such arguments. I suggested you try posting one or more of those. You didn't. Think is anyone is trolling, it's not me.

 

[Butch5]

How do you lose faith by rejecting Jesus?

I just answered the question and you asked me again.

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?

Everything needs an explanation. Half the reason for the confusion is people talking past each other because they're not on the same page.

Another fallacy. It's a False Dichotomy. You give an either/or option when there is a third option that being one is saved by grace and works.

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

I understood what you said. You presumed to know what fallen angels would desire

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.

That's the assumption. That God ordains one's path. This shows that your argument of partiality is based on an assumption which is what I said in the beginning.

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.

And I will point out again that your argument is based on an assumption. You are assuming God ordains one's path. We can even see the assumption in the way you worded your statement. You said, "If God ordains a path". You didn't say, since God ordains a path, you said if. So, it would seem that the concept isn't even established in your mind.

If you want to make the partiality argument you would first have to prove that God ordains one's path. Then there would at least be reason to entertain your argument. You are starting the argument with an unsubstantiated premise.

 

[Butch5]

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

No, You said that. It's in your opining post. You said, "IE, if our ''best action'' is not good enough for God, how is it that ''one'' action from Jesus is sufficient for God."

 

[Butch5]

. 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 fori assumum 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.

I've grasped the point being made. But it's fallacious. I never implied that you were stupid. Since you consider yourself having above average intelligence then I would think you would break these points down and examine them to see if they are valid points. Committing fallacies doesn't measure one's intelligence. There are scholars who commit fallacies all the time. It's a matter of learning the process of logical argumentation. It's learning to look at how we reason. For instance, in your last post, you alluded to the fact that we are saved by either grace or works. You didn't mention another option when there clearly is another option, that being, grace and works. Now, you can reject that idea from a theological standpoint. But, from a reasoning standpoint it is an option. That's why the statement is a fallacy. The correct way to state that logically, would be to say we are saved by, grace, works, or a combination of both.

You see, when I looked at the arguments, I simply look at the premise(s) Is/are they valid? If a premise is assumed then it needs to be validated before the argument can be evaluated. If the premise(s) is/are valid then I look at the chain of reasoning. Is it valid? This is where I look for errors in reasoning, such as the False Dichotomy explained above. I'm extremely logical and as such I see logical fallacies easily. I also have seen them in my arguments in the past. Another thing I do is to stop and think about a statement to see if it could be understood differently. Is It possible that the reader could understand a subject differently than I do? For instance, when you said we are saved by either grace or works. I asked what works means. Because, it could mean, as many claim, anything a person does, or it could mean the works of the Law.

When you didn't address any of what I said, I assumed you weren't interested. As such I'm not going to invest my time explaining it. I spend hours writing posts explaining things to people on these forums and that's fine. However, if someone shows no interest, I'm not going to expend my time. I'd be more than happy to discuss the subject, but that would involve addressing the fallacies also.

 

[KingJ]

I can see you're not going address the fallacies nor the assumptions. I've pointed them and even named them so you could look them up and see what they are. Instead you just claim they're not fallacies.

In your original post you claimed to have hundreds of such arguments. I suggested you try posting one or more of those. You didn't. Think is anyone is trolling, it's not me.

You said '' Hasty Generalization '' to point 2. What exactly is a hasty generalization there. I believe you have skimmed the point made.
You said ''unwarranted assumption'' to point 2. The point of the angels not desiring repentance, if you read the whole passage is not pertinent. You are focusing on shoe laces instead of the knockout punch.

The moment you actually deal with the arguments made, we can move on to others. Currently you are coming across like an evasive, tiresome, better then though, troll.

 

[KingJ]

I just answered the question and you asked me again.

Yes, I skimmed your post. You said ''

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

This statement separates you from other anti-OSAS believers. They would say, you are not yet saved ''fully accepted'' Jesus. In the fulness of your time ''you will be''.

However, this is not to your credit as the elephant in the room should be clearer to you.

With your belief a Christian should live in a closet and not come out until the rapture. You ignore this by making the statement ''I / me assume God is partial''.

Butch, this statement is the definition of evasiveness. Pretend I am an atheist. Convince me God is not partial when He allows Person A four hours to reject Jesus and Person B, fifty years.

Please don't come with ''God could not save and spare person A'' or ''God could not shorten Person B's fifty years''.

 

[Butch5]

You said '' Hasty Generalization '' to point 2. What exactly is a hasty generalization there. I believe you have skimmed the point made.
You said ''unwarranted assumption'' to point 2. The point of the angels not desiring repentance, if you read the whole passage is not pertinent. You are focusing on shoe laces instead of the knockout punch.

The moment you actually deal with the arguments made, we can move on to others. Currently you are coming across like an evasive, tiresome, better then though, troll.

A Hasty Generalization is when a conclusion is drawn on very little evidence.

FinMasters - Master Your Finances and Reach Your Goals

Master your finances and reach your goals. We offer expert-driven advice and resources to help you earn, save and grow your money.

fallacyinlogic.com

You said if one person is saved without works and another has to go through life with the risk of being lost it would make God partial. Firstly, the thief on the cross had the option to reject Jesus after believing Him, even if it was only an hour or two. So, it is the same for both men. Granted one has a much longer time. But, the requirements are the same. But, let's look at some other examples. If as you suggested, God ordains one's path, what do we make of these examples. What if God ordains one man to be rich and another poor. What if He ordains one man to be healthy and another to suffer illness? What if He ordains one to find the love of his life and another not to? Using the reasoning you used with the thief, would this not also make God partial? As we expand the sample size of the evidence we begin to see that the argument isn't as sound as it appeared with just one example. We know God is impartial, so we must conclude that these examples are not partiality. If they are not then neither is the thief being promised the Kingdom just before death.

When I mentioned the unwarranted assumption it was to point out the error in that line of reasoning, In point 3 you said, "The scriptural theory is that there is no redemption plan for the fallen angels as they will never desire true repentance." The Scriptures don't tell us that fallen angels will never desire repentance. That makes it an assumption. What is the basis for this assumption?

 

[Butch5]

Yes, I skimmed your post. You said '' This statement separates you from other anti-OSAS believers. They would say, you are not yet saved ''fully accepted'' Jesus. In the fulness of your time ''you will be''.

However, this is not to your credit as the elephant in the room should be clearer to you.

With your belief a Christian should live in a closet and not come out until the rapture. You ignore this by making the statement ''I / me assume God is partial''.

Butch, this statement is the definition of evasiveness. Pretend I am an atheist. Convince me God is not partial when He allows Person A four hours to reject Jesus and Person B, fifty years.

Please don't come with ''God could not save and spare person A'' or ''God could not shorten Person B's fifty years''.

But it doesn't matter what others say. What matters is what the Scriptures say.

There is no elephant. It's the assumption that God ordains people's lives. If you eliminate that assumption there is no issue.
God offers eternal life to those who believe. He says, believe in Christ and follow Him. Man A hears this and believes as a young man. Man B hears this and believes this as a young man. Man A takes up skydiving. Man B becomes a professor. A few years after Man A believes he jumps from a plane and his parachute doesn't open. Man B lives to be 85 years old. There is absolutely no partiality on God's part. Man A didn't have as long a time to reject Christ because he jumped out of an airplane, not because of anything God did.

When we remove the assumption that God ordains people's lives the argument falls apart. That's why I said, that assumption needs to be validated

 

[JerryfromMass]

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.

"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."

Keep in mind that Jesus is speaking to people that live in an agrarian society who are well learned in the methods of grafting branches into root-stock.

Any branch can be grafted onto the root stock, but that does not mean the branch will fruitful. If the branch grafted onto the root-stock is too dry a branch, the root-stock will have no effect on it because it was beyond replenishing to begin with. If the branch grafted onto the root-stock is too big, the root-stock will not be able to sustain the size of the branch and the branch will eventually die from its inability to be sustained. Both these types of branches were grafted onto the root-stock but produce no fruit and are cast off.

A freshly cut branch grafted onto the root-stock of a size that the root-stock can properly feed will grow and produce fruit and the vine dresser will care for it to help its continual growth and fruit-bearing. That is the once saved always saved grafted branch.

 

[KingJ]

A Hasty Generalization is when a conclusion is drawn on very little evidence.

FinMasters - Master Your Finances and Reach Your Goals

Master your finances and reach your goals. We offer expert-driven advice and resources to help you earn, save and grow your money.

fallacyinlogic.com

Butch you are such a pain to discuss with. I asked you why you say that to point 2.

What is the ''little evidence''? Scripture?

 

[KingJ]

Everything needs an explanation. Half the reason for the confusion is people talking past each other because they're not on the same page.

There is no talking past each other. There is simply you not properly reading before you reply.

Another fallacy. It's a False Dichotomy. You give an either/or option when there is a third option that being one is saved by grace and works.

Don't just observe, state the third option.

That's the assumption. That God ordains one's path. This shows that your argument of partiality is based on an assumption which is what I said in the beginning.

The steps of the righteous are lead by God. God ordains our path once we make Him Lord, that is not an assumption.

And I will point out again that your argument is based on an assumption. You are assuming God ordains one's path. We can even see the assumption in the way you worded your statement. You said, "If God ordains a path". You didn't say, since God ordains a path, you said if. So, it would seem that the concept isn't even established in your mind.

My full sentence was '' If God ordains a path to eternal bliss for me that is not the same as for you, that is the definition of partiality.''. This is not me making an assumption.

If Butch had a tail he could swing in the trees. Am I assuming Butch has a tail? I am making the point that it should be obvious that since Butch does not swing in trees, he does not have a tail.

If you want to make the partiality argument you would first have to prove that God ordains one's path. Then there would at least be reason to entertain your argument. You are starting the argument with an unsubstantiated premise.

God does not over ride free will. But when we come to Him from free will, we give Him our lives to do with as He wishes. Matt 16:24 makes that rather crystal clear.

 

[KingJ]

You see, when I looked at the arguments, I simply look at the premise(s) Is/are they valid? If a premise is assumed then it needs to be validated before the argument can be evaluated. If the premise(s) is/are valid then I look at the chain of reasoning. Is it valid? This is where I look for errors in reasoning, such as the False Dichotomy explained above. I'm extremely logical and as such I see logical fallacies easily. I also have seen them in my arguments in the past. Another thing I do is to stop and think about a statement to see if it could be understood differently. Is It possible that the reader could understand a subject differently than I do? For instance, when you said we are saved by either grace or works. I asked what works means. Because, it could mean, as many claim, anything a person does, or it could mean the works of the Law.

There is nothing wrong with this. You just need to do more explaining when you make your claims. Otherwise you just come off as a troll.

When you didn't address any of what I said, I assumed you weren't interested. As such I'm not going to invest my time explaining it. I spend hours writing posts explaining things to people on these forums and that's fine. However, if someone shows no interest, I'm not going to expend my time. I'd be more than happy to discuss the subject, but that would involve addressing the fallacies also.

I invested time to start this thread, why would you think I am not interested?

I have debated and discussed with atheists for ten plus years. Stating ''fallacies'' without proper explanations is evasion 101.

 

[KingJ]

No, You said that. It's in your opining post. You said, "IE, if our ''best action'' is not good enough for God, how is it that ''one'' action from Jesus is sufficient for God."

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

This is not saying ''our best is not good enough for God''. It is saying the complete opposite.

 

[KingJ]

But it doesn't matter what others say. What matters is what the Scriptures say.

Scripture says God is impartial Acts 10:34, righteous in all His ways Psalm 145:17, light with no darkness in Him at all 1 John 1:5.

As such God will not in any way shape or form be guilty of one iota of partiality.

There is no elephant. It's the assumption that God ordains people's lives. If you eliminate that assumption there is no issue.

Dealt with this in post # 31.

God offers eternal life to those who believe. He says, believe in Christ and follow Him. Man A hears this and believes as a young man. Man B hears this and believes this as a young man. Man A takes up skydiving. Man B becomes a professor. A few years after Man A believes he jumps from a plane and his parachute doesn't open. Man B lives to be 85 years old. There is absolutely no partiality on God's part. Man A didn't have as long a time to reject Christ because he jumped out of an airplane, not because of anything God did.

Love the example.

However, Scripture says Christians are on earth to serve God, be His ambassadors 2 Cor 5:20. Christianity 101 is to lay our lives down for God Matt 16:24. As quoted above the steps of the righteous are lead by God Psalm 37:23.

As such, your example needs to be edited to read:

Man A hears this and believes as a young man. Man B hears this and believes this as a young man.

God uses Man A to witness to those who skydive. Man B becomes a professor and is used by God to witness to students. A few years after, Man A jumps from a plane and his parachute doesn't open. God could send angels to catch him, but does not. Man B lives to be 85 years old.

If OSAS were not true, there is absolutely partiality on God's part. Man A was taken earlier. Man B, as he lived for longer would encounter more temptations and opportunities to lose his salvation. Despite the fact that he served God ten times more....

 

[JerryfromMass]

But it doesn't matter what others say. What matters is what the Scriptures say.

There is no elephant. It's the assumption that God ordains people's lives. If you eliminate that assumption there is no issue.
God offers eternal life to those who believe. He says, believe in Christ and follow Him. Man A hears this and believes as a young man. Man B hears this and believes this as a young man. Man A takes up skydiving. Man B becomes a professor. A few years after Man A believes he jumps from a plane and his parachute doesn't open. Man B lives to be 85 years old. There is absolutely no partiality on God's part. Man A didn't have as long a time to reject Christ because he jumped out of an airplane, not because of anything God did.

When we remove the assumption that God ordains people's lives the argument falls apart. That's why I said, that assumption needs to be validated

Butch,

I imagine you do believe you are saved. What can you imagine ever doing that will cause you to lose your salvation?

I've grasped the point being made. But it's fallacious. I never implied that you were stupid. Since you consider yourself having above average intelligence then I would think you would break these points down and examine them to see if they are valid points. Committing fallacies doesn't measure one's intelligence. There are scholars who commit fallacies all the time. It's a matter of learning the process of logical argumentation. It's learning to look at how we reason. For instance, in your last post, you alluded to the fact that we are saved by either grace or works. You didn't mention another option when there clearly is another option, that being, grace and works. Now, you can reject that idea from a theological standpoint. But, from a reasoning standpoint it is an option. That's why the statement is a fallacy. The correct way to state that logically, would be to say we are saved by, grace, works, or a combination of both.

You see, when I looked at the arguments, I simply look at the premise(s) Is/are they valid? If a premise is assumed then it needs to be validated before the argument can be evaluated. If the premise(s) is/are valid then I look at the chain of reasoning. Is it valid? This is where I look for errors in reasoning, such as the False Dichotomy explained above. I'm extremely logical and as such I see logical fallacies easily. I also have seen them in my arguments in the past. Another thing I do is to stop and think about a statement to see if it could be understood differently. Is It possible that the reader could understand a subject differently than I do? For instance, when you said we are saved by either grace or works. I asked what works means. Because, it could mean, as many claim, anything a person does, or it could mean the works of the Law.

When you didn't address any of what I said, I assumed you weren't interested. As such I'm not going to invest my time explaining it. I spend hours writing posts explaining things to people on these forums and that's fine. However, if someone shows no interest, I'm not going to expend my time. I'd be more than happy to discuss the subject, but that would involve addressing the fallacies also.

But it doesn't matter what others say. What matters is what the Scriptures say.

There is no elephant. It's the assumption that God ordains people's lives. If you eliminate that assumption there is no issue.
God offers eternal life to those who believe. He says, believe in Christ and follow Him. Man A hears this and believes as a young man. Man B hears this and believes this as a young man. Man A takes up skydiving. Man B becomes a professor. A few years after Man A believes he jumps from a plane and his parachute doesn't open. Man B lives to be 85 years old. There is absolutely no partiality on God's part. Man A didn't have as long a time to reject Christ because he jumped out of an airplane, not because of anything God did.

When we remove the assumption that God ordains people's lives the argument falls apart. That's why I said, that assumption needs to be validated

There is nothing wrong with this. You just need to do more explaining when you make your claims. Otherwise you just come off as a troll.

I invested time to start this thread, why would you think I am not interested?

I have debated and discussed with atheists for ten plus years. Stating ''fallacies'' without proper explanations is evasion 101.

Butch,

You're born again, therefore you are saved. What would cause you, Butch, to lose your salvation or to simply voluntarily relinquish the gift of eternal life that God has given you?

Just wondering what it would take for Satan to grasp Butch away from the clutches of an almighty God?

I hope you answer.

 

[Butch5]

Butch you are such a pain to discuss with. I asked you why you say that to point 2.

What is the ''little evidence''? Scripture?

What don't you understand? I posted the definition of Hasty Generalization and showed it. The "little evidence" is the one example you gave, the thief on the cross. You took one event as evidence, the thief on the cross, and said, if he gets saved without doing anything and Peter has to live his life with the possibility that he could turn away that means God is partial. Firstly, you have Acts 10:34 out of context. Peter is saying that God doesn't discriminate between Jew and Gentile. There is nothing in that passage about losing salvation. The passage is being used in a way that Peter did not intend.

I gave other examples to show that the premise you were using isn't valid. Your argument was based on the assumption that God ordains people's lives. If we accept your premise then it means that God ordains one to be rich and one to be poor, one to be healthy one to be sickly, etc. These too, would be examples of partiality. If God does this, and the Bible says He shows no partiality, then these examples are not partiality. If they are not, then neither is your example of the thief as they're based on the same premise.

 

[JerryfromMass]

What don't you understand? I posted the definition of Hasty Generalization and showed it. The "little evidence" is the one example you gave, the thief on the cross. You took one event as evidence, the thief on the cross, and said, if he gets saved without doing anything and Peter has to live his life with the possibility that he could turn away that means God is partial. Firstly, you have Acts 10:34 out of context. Peter is saying that God doesn't discriminate between Jew and Gentile. There is nothing in that passage about losing salvation. The passage is being used in a way that Peter did not intend.

I gave other examples to show that the premise you were using isn't valid. Your argument was based on the assumption that God ordains people's lives. If we accept your premise then it means that God ordains one to be rich and one to be poor, one to be healthy one to be sickly, etc. These too, would be examples of partiality. If God does this, and the Bible says He shows no partiality, then these examples are not partiality. If they are not, then neither is your example of the thief as they're based on the same premise.

Butch,

As a born again believer saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus, you are in the sheep-fold. Is your free-will to reject God's gift of eternal life stronger than God's sovereign-will to keep you in the sheep-fold?

 

[Butch5]

There is no talking past each other. There is simply you not properly reading before you reply.

Don't just observe, state the third option.

I gave you the third option right there in the post. That being being saved by grace and works. This is the second time you've asked me for what I clearly stated in the very post you asked about.

The steps of the righteous are lead by God. God ordains our path once we make Him Lord, that is not an assumption.

lead and ordained mean two different things. To lead means to guide, to ordain means to order something.

My full sentence was '' If God ordains a path to eternal bliss for me that is not the same as for you, that is the definition of partiality.''. This is not me making an assumption.

If Butch had a tail he could swing in the trees. Am I assuming Butch has a tail? I am making the point that it should be obvious that since Butch does not swing in trees, he does not have a tail.

God does not over ride free will. But when we come to Him from free will, we give Him our lives to do with as He wishes. Matt 16:24 makes that rather crystal clear.

The word "if" makes it a conditional statement. However, I disagree with the sentence itself. Partiality is showing favor, usually on some basis within the one being favored. If God ordained people's path as you suggest, then He ordained a different path for Paul and John. Paul was beheaded and John died of old age. Does that mean He's partial? If God did ordain people's lives as you suggest, ordaining different paths wouldn't be partiality unless there was favoritism. If God ordained Paul to a certain path because He knew that Paul was better suited to the path than one of the other apostles, that's not favoritism and it doesn't make God partial.

 

[Butch5]

There is nothing wrong with this. You just need to do more explaining when you make your claims. Otherwise you just come off as a troll.

I invested time to start this thread, why would you think I am not interested?

I have debated and discussed with atheists for ten plus years. Stating ''fallacies'' without proper explanations is evasion 101.

This started in the other thread. I gave you the fallacies. One of the big problems I find is that of logical fallacies. People make them so often that it's sometimes not evn worth pointing out. But, on Christian forums they are a dime a dozen. For people who are seeking the Truth, this really shouldn't be. Also, When debating with Atheists, logical fallacies become even more important. I've seen Christians get shredded by Atheists because they had fallacies in their arguments and the Atheist saw them clear as day. I've been saying for years, one of the best things that churches could do to help equip Christians to share their faith is to have classes that teach reasoning and logical fallacies. There are few ways to lose someone faster than presenting them with logical fallacies. Often when pointed out the Christian simply blows off the statement and continues the argument. At that point the argument is usually lost.

 

[Butch5]

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

This is not saying ''our best is not good enough for God''. It is saying the complete opposite.

It's a question.