ArchivedOSAS revisitedWell, if you believe what Aineo says about "they were never truly saved in the first place" being a copout and not a valid response, then I can see why you'd be confused. But the fact of the matter is that many people believe that OSAS is a Scripturally supported doctrine, and just because Aineo doesn't want to acknowledge the Scriptural basis for it, that does not make it an invalid response. And even if it is an invalid response, isn't that what debate is about.... two sides defending their beliefs? If you don't allow one side to defend their beliefs, as invalid as you think they are, doesn't that kinda kill any chance for debate? Do a google on "OSAS" or "eternal security" and you'll find a bunch of articles on the subject. Or look ar a few of the threads on this forum that talk about it. Most of them have been locked at this point, so you won't be able to add anything new there, but if you want to continue ideas from those threads, I don't have a problem if you continue them here. Well, one side (witness, Aineo) says that you can lose your salvation by walking away from Christ (commit apostacy). The other side (witness, me) says that you cannot lose your salvation at all, and that the people who apostacize were not truly born again to begin with. Those that believe you can lose your salvation believe that you do so by committing apostacy, or by walking away from the faith in Christ that you once had. I don't think they think it's just a matter of committing a sin and losing salvation, rather to apostacize you must willfully deny Christ. Is that right, Aineo? |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame