As both Gospel Hall and Baptists, and probably others, such as Pentecostals believe in Once Saved Always Saved, does anybody know the origin of this belief, as in time, place, who, etc.?

Calvin.

So, in a nutshell, the Once Saved Always Saved doctrine originated with John Calvin and was never a teaching of the Christian Church from its beginning until John Calvin.

Am I correct in my nutshell statement?

Now for my next question.

What texts do they use to substantiate this belief?

It seems that mainly these 8 texts:

1- My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. John 10:27-29.

2- Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 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. Romans 8:35-39

3- Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ. Philippians 1:6

4- Who are kept by the power of God through faith . . . I Peter 1:5

5- For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. Romans 11:29

6- All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out. John 6:37

7- And this is the Father's will who hath sent me, that all of which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again on the last day. John 6:39

8- In whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. Ephesians 1:13-14

http://eternalsecurity.us/eight_pillars_of_eternal_securit.htm

for the 8 texts and the link.

How do we explain what those 8 texts are really saying?

Here's another one:

Of the quotes Rosangela cited, I think 1-4 and 6 are easily dealt with simply by pointing out that the person himself can choose to leave. The fifth one is interesting:



Here's the context:



This whole section, Romans 9-11, is dealing with the same theme of how it is that the Gentiles can be saved without being circumcised, a theme which much of Romans is concerned about. Paul argues that God has chosen to save people on the basis of their faith. Those whom God calls are those who have faith. God has designated this, and not circumcision, as the method of election.



This brings out that Israel's fate was not determined by a unilateral decision or act on the part of God, but by Israel's own decision.

Another argument Calvinist's make is that if our salvation depended at all upon anything that we did (including choose to accept Christ), then it would no longer be by grace.

I think an effective counterargument against the whole Calvinistic framework is to consider what it says about God. That is, what would it say about God if it were the case that God chooses certain ones to be saved, regardless of their choice, but not others.

What this author says:


He says, "If salvation from the penalty of breaking God's laws cannot be earned by good deeds, then it cannot be lost by bad deeds."
How would you all respond to this?

First of all, it's an invalid argument. If salvation cannot be earned by good deeds, what logically follows is that if you have salvation, you didn't earn it by doing good deeds, and that's it. You can't conclude logically anything about how you would lose salvation from this premise.

Basically the question comes down to whether or not the will is involved in salvation. If our will were not involved in our receiving salvation, then it would make sense that it wouldn't be involved in our not receiving it. It would also make sense that we couldn't lose it, since if our will weren't involved in the first place, and we received it only because God chose to give it to us, why would He change His mind and take it away from us? That wouldn't make sense.

Otoh, if our will is involved in our receiving salvation, then it would make sense that we could choose to reject it, using that same will.

There is an unspoken premise that if our will is involved, then the question of earning salvation by good deeds, or losing it by bad deeds must be involved as well. But this isn't what we believe. What we believe is that salvation is by grace through faith, and that faith is evidenced by good deeds, just as unbelief is evidenced by bad deeds.



This brings out the condition of continuing in faith, not being moved away from the hope of the gospel.

Two questions to consider:

1.Is our will involved in our salvation?
2.Can our will be involved without this being meritorious, "robbing God of having all the glory."?

It's interesting that Adam and Eve lost salvation (eternal life) through one bad deed, but this bad deed was preceded by unbelief.

Don't forget that both Adam and Eve repented and regained their lost salvation.

When we speak of having or losing salvation, that's really not comparable to Adam and Eve's situation (we couldn't really say that they had salvation. Do the angels have "salvation"? Similarly in regards to "eternal life," as we usually think of this in terms of salvation or redemption.) I think it would be more accurate to say that Adam and Eve rebelled by one bad deed, which makes sense, since any rebellion would have to begin somewhere, with some "bad deed." That this rebellion was preceded by unbelief is an important point.

Belief alone isn't salvation in that the devil believes and trembles.

This is one of the most misunderstood Scriptures in the Bible. I'm sure if James had the punctuation, he would have written "believe" in quotes. James wasn't talking about about belief as in saving faith, but as mental assent, which is clear from the context:



To "believe in one God," is simply mental assent, not saving faith.

It's very important that we understand that salvation is by faith, and not by works. It's also not by faith and works. It's by faith which works.



Even the name of this compilation could be improved to "Faith which works."

Salvation is by faith alone in Christ, which faith (if saving faith) is manifested by obedience to the law of God.

Good questions Tom, and importand discussion!

The doctrine of Election is very prominent in the Bible. It's all over the place. We cannot ignore it.

According to the Bible an evil man does not desire God. So therefore he cannot choose God because he doesn't desire Him to begin with and is in enmity with Him. Therefore a supernatural phenomena has to happen, which is being "Born Again".

Also the Bible says that the Father draws those that He choose to Christ.



The logic behind this is we are DEAD, and we can only become ALIVE through the NEW BIRTH. Those that the Father has Chosen and was vivified(Born Again) by Christ in their due time, will never be lost.

Is our definition of "Freedom" wrong? We have some Freedom, but not the way we "DEAD PEOPLE" think it is. I came to realize our understanding of Freedom is totally false and needs to be examine through what the Bible defines TRUE FREEDOM.

I'm not sure that James would agree entirely with your explication of his words. I do agree that the kind of "believe" spoken of in 2:19 is that of mental assent. But then you said this:

On this point, I disagree. It may be impossible for me to adequately convey my perspective on this point, but I assure you that I do not disagree merely to argue, but that I do have a different understanding on this point which I think perhaps fewer than 1% of our church members would grasp. Nor do I feel it is mandatory to understand ALL of this in order to be saved. A child, with child-like faith, may be saved, as any adult with the same kind of faith may be, apart from a full understanding of how.

We are saved by works (among other things).

Why are we "weighed in the balances?" Of what use would this be if works played no part? Why have an "investigative judgment?" Or perhaps, Tom, you do not believe in this?

Going back to James: notice that he specifically draws our attention in that same chapter to what real faith is.

When did this justification take place according to the text? Was it before or after his deed? Yet, when did he first have faith? Before or after?


Works actually DO something. They perfect our faith.

Even then, don't get me wrong, these are NOT the works by which we are saved. They are merely the works which justify us, and by which we are judged. In other words, these are the works that fall into the latter point of the statement that says: "We can't get to Heaven by our works, but we won't get there without them."

There are two kinds of works: our works, and God's works. The works by which we are saved our God's. Jesus did for us that which was necessary to free us from the penalty of death. There is no work which we do that is remotely possible of providing us this escape.

But there is another work which we must do in order to demonstrate and to perfect our faith in Christ's works on our behalf. That is the work that James refers to. James and Paul spoke of separate points, while seemingly addressing the same thing. It's difficult to explain the distinction between such closely related points, but just the same, the distinction is there and a very important one.

The work that "saves" us: Christ's perfect life and sacrifice.
The work that accepts this: our work of faith, by which we strengthen and perfect our faith, in obeying God's commandments.

BOTH works are necessary. The work that "saves" us only does so if we accept it--which is why I put it in quotes. God will not save us against our will.

Without obedience, the Bible says, we do not love God nor have faith in Him. Obedience shows our will, our desire. Eve would have shown both love and faith toward God by remaining faithful and restraining herself from going against His commandment. (I do agree with you, Tom, that Eve, prior to sin, did not require salvation. But at no point are faith and love toward God unnecessary, and I think you would agree.)

We may fool ourselves into thinking that we love God and have faith in Him, but our actions will show the truth. If we really love God, our will will be exercised to do what He asks of us.

Which comes first? Faith. By what are we judged? Works that follow faith, for these show our faith. The devils may believe God, but do not do His bidding. They are judged not on their "mental assent" but on their "bodily assent." The same is true of us. True faith can only be defined by actions. Without obedience, James says, there is no faith. Few understand this point adequately, but this part of the issue is critical and salvational. It is not optional to understand this.

Without obedience, we have no faith. Without faith, we do not have Christ's works to stand in place of ours in the judgment. Without Christ's works, we cannot receive His salvation. Without salvation, we are lost.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I was commenting on their statement that "salvation ... cannot be lost by bad deeds."

In fact, a bad deed is just an evidence that you've lost your faith in God, in the same way that a good deed is an evidence that your faith in God is genuine.

Satan tried to shake Christ's confidence in His Father in order to lead Him to sin. He did the same with Adam and Eve. And he does the same with us.

They [the angels] asked themselves, Will the holy pair transfer their faith and love from the Father and Son to Satan? Will they accept his falsehoods as truth? {TMK 14.5}

A sin is always preceded by the transference of faith from God to Satan.

In my opinion, there is a valid parallel here between the experience of a saved person and the experience of Adam and Eve.

Agreed, and well stated.



An interesting point, and a good way of thinking of this, one which I hadn't thought of in putting it this way. I like it!



In a qualified way. That is, to some extent. Once man sinned, his experience became different than that of other beings in important ways. Discussing Adam and Eve's situation before they sinned is like discussing that of unfallen beings. So we could say that there is a valid paralle between the experience of a saved person and an unfallen angel, for example, but there are clearly differences as well.

Anyway, I like your point about transferring faith from God to Satan, and agree that that's a valid parallel.

GC, I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. Let me try expressing things this way, and see if you agree.

We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, which faith, if genuine, is manifested by obedience.

Regarding the works James speaks of, I believe it is these works which manifest faith.

Regarding James speaking of being justified by works, I think he is saying the same thing, that a person's faith is manifested by obedience. "Justified" can mean different things, depending upon the context (just like "believe").

Elle, is it your belief that our will doesn't enter into our salvation? That is, that only God's will determines whether a person will be saved or not?

If so, why wouldn't God choose for all to be saved? Or is this what you believe?

Seems to me that I read that God desires that all repent, not only a chosen few and that nobody perish.