Peter and OSAS

[Technicoid]

I know we have proof texts to dispute OSAS, but it seems to me that solid examples have more of an impact. So here's one to consider.

I've ruminated before (on my own, not here) about the meaning of Peter's three denials and Christ's inciting of three affirmations in John 21. My impression is that these three affrimations are an example of working out salvation. He denies Christ three times, and Christ compels him to affirm Him three times. This isn't to say that every act of renunciation has to be matched identically (one for one) with an act act of affirmation but that works of evil and good have a certain balancing effect in the scheme of salvation.

One of the stumbling blocks Sola Scripturists attempt to put forward is the idea that once we are saved, we are always saved (OSAS). The letters of Paul give us enough to counteract that claim. However, I also noted tonight as I was reading that Peter's life is a prime example of working out salvation, and hence, an argument against OSAS.

More on this tomorrow. Must go to sleep.

[phatcatholic]

hmmm.............you might be on to something. i'm still not totally convinced that your example refutes the doctrine, so i'm interested to see what other thoughts you have on this. see you tomorrow, sleep well

[Technicoid]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jul 8 2005, 12:29 AM']hmmm.............you might be on to something. i'm still not totally convinced that your example refutes the doctrine, so i'm interested to see what other thoughts you have on this. see you tomorrow, sleep well
[/quote]

I hadn't really proided any examples, yet. But the idea is this. Christ names Peter the Rock. Shortly after, he rebukes him for standing in the way of the Passion. He declares that Peter will deny Him three times. He later gives Peter the means for repentance (the three affirmations). In defense of Christ, Peter attacks Malthus. Christ undoes the violence on the spot. In Acts, Paul rebukes Peter for being a hypocrite. We have to assume Peter repents for this as well.

Are we to believe that Christ left an unsaved Apostle to feed His flock, or are we to accept that Christ knows we will fall and have to turn again to Him (as He noted in Luke)?

To accept OSAS, you have to accept that Christ willingly left the Church in the hands of someone who wasn't saved and who had a pattern of falling.

Does that make sense?

[phatcatholic]

yes, but the OSAS proponent might say that Peter was already saved (possibly by his profession of faith in Mat 16) and so these future lapses in judgment were sinful, but they did not sever his relationship w/ the Lord.

also, most protestants would be hesitant to say that Jesus left the Church in the hands of Peter. they don't even define "Church" the same way we do.....

Edited July 8, 2005 by phatcatholic

[Technicoid]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jul 8 2005, 09:52 AM']yes, but the OSAS proponent might say that Peter was already saved (possibly by his profession of faith in Mat 16) and so these future lapses in judgment were sinful, but they did not sever his relationship w/ the Lord.[/quote]

I hear most of them claim that people who continue to fall are not saved. Of course, the indefensibility of that position is what makes OSAS slippery. They vascillate from one position to the other.

[quote]also, most protestants would be hesitant to say that Jesus left the Church in the hands of Peter. they don't even define "Church" the same way we do.....
[/quote]

True.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jul 8 2005, 09:52 AM']yes, but the OSAS proponent might say that Peter was already saved (possibly by his profession of faith in Mat 16) and so these future lapses in judgment were sinful, but they did not sever his relationship w/ the Lord.

also, most protestants would be hesitant to say that Jesus left the Church in the hands of Peter. they don't even define "Church" the same way we do.....
[right][snapback]635636[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The response of course to this arguement is that Jesus said "those who deny me before men I will deny before the father.". There are about three arguements I have heard to this. All of them quite easily refuteable. i.e. Jesus was only speaking about those who weren't saved. Yet if you look at the context he was talking to his disciples. Jesus was bluffing. Ya right. Peter didn't really mean it. How many times would he have to deny Jesus before he really meant it. This is pre-resurrection. To that I say well then Jesus couldn't possibly be talking about OSAS in John 3:16 now could he.

I think these facts make Tech's arguement a stronger one.

[StColette]

[quote name='Technicoid' date='Jul 8 2005, 10:21 AM']I hear most of them claim that people who continue to fall are not saved. [right][snapback]635703[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Umm, wouldn't sinning be a fall. So that would mean even those who believe in OSAS would not really be saved since every time they sin they fall from grace.

[Technicoid]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Jul 8 2005, 10:32 AM']The response of course to this arguement is that Jesus said "those who deny me before men I will deny before the father.".  There are about three arguements I have heard to this.  All of them quite easily refuteable.  i.e. Jesus was only speaking about those who weren't saved.  Yet if you look at the context he was talking to his disciples.  Jesus was bluffing.  Ya right.  Peter didn't really mean it.  How many times would he have to deny Jesus before he really meant it.  This is pre-resurrection.  To that I say well then Jesus couldn't possibly be talking about OSAS in John 3:16 now could he.

I think these facts make Tech's arguement a stronger one.
[/quote]

Certainly. You can't use the example of Peter by itself. You have to bolster it with evidence elsewhere.

[Technicoid]

[quote name='StColette' date='Jul 8 2005, 11:33 AM']Umm, wouldn't sinning be a fall. So that would mean even those who believe in OSAS would not really be saved since every time they sin they fall from grace.[/quote]

That's pretty much the biggest problem with OSAS. I think it promotes a dangerous mindset—either that one is impervious to sin and that one's actions are therefore not sinful, or that one cannot avoid sinning and must be reprobate.

Of course, I might have the wrong idea of what people believe in regard to OSAS.

Hmmmm. I should probably do more reading in that regard.

[StColette]

from the people i've talked to who believe in OSAS they believe that once they accept Christ then they are saved and nothing can keep them from entering Heaven. They don't believe in the loss of grace.