Davyd Chong has provided an interesting set of references to support his view. Unfortunately, Mr. Chong chases down exactly the same path as our Aussie correspondents. He has provided a rather large, even hefty contribution to the conversation taking place. But as with the others, he is a man equipped with a hammer and thus sees everything as a nail. He, like the rest of the Workers For Salvation (hereafter referred to as WFS) appeal to scripture that has nothing to do with the salvation of the Christian, regeneration, or the Church. Because I’m such a stand-up guy, I will make the great sacrifice and address each of the issues he presents. My comments will appear after each of his rather plentiful paragraphs. In order to let you read the comment without constantly being interrupted by me, here is a link to a PDF of his original comment. I wouldn’t want any of you to accuse me of twisting what he says.

I suspect this is the last comment/posting on the issue. I really have to move on to other things. I am more than willing to correspond with any of you via e-mail. This series has certainly been interesting, and entertaining. But all good things do eventually have to come to an end. However, if any of you send me a really interesting e-mail I will post it (with your permission of course) and we can start this all over again.
I’ve addressed most of the arguments this guy makes, both in other posts and in the PDF you can download by the Other Essays link to the right and in previous postings. The new part about this one is the use of the parables to prove we can lose our salvation.
Saddle up, boys and girls. Here we go!

After reading some of your posts on the issue of OSAS, I feel that it is important to give you some issues to ponder about. I shall try to refrain from reiterating what the rest have said so far (because you are bored of repetitions too yeah?), but put my point across swiftly and straightforward.

It is the opinion of most Apologetics Ministries that OSAS cannot stand upon careful scrutiny of scriptures. We all know, as Christians, that the Bible is the most trustworthy and final source of authority, and it is “profitable for teaching, rebuking and instructing”. In the light of scriptures, it is very clear that OSAS cannot stand, from an unbiased view. Think about the following points:

I’m not sure which “apologetics ministries” he’s talking about. He could be talking about the wealth of Armenian sites out there. It almost seems as if he believes that if he says something with enough authority we will simply accept it. His argument doesn’t start very well. No substance so far.

1. Would we be as desperate to reach out to backslidden Christians, or even Homosexual Christians if we believed that they were on their way to heaven still? True, they might be losing God’s plan for them on this earth, but still that doesn’t seem much of a motivation.

The Christian is never desperate to reach out to others. It is not my job to save someone. As Jesus has said on several occasions, no one comes to the Father except that he be drawn, not pulled or pushed by me. With his reference to the “backslidden” or homosexual Christian, Davyd races down the very trail the others keep going. If a person is in continuous sin, and they can do this without any sense of conviction from God then that person, it is pretty safe to say, does not belong to God. They are not saved, and were not saved to begin with. The issue with them is not a matter of being brought back to God. Their issue is to get to God in the first place.

2. How then would we explain the many parables like the 10 virgins waiting for the bridegroom (Matthew 25:1-13). It is clear that all of them were Christians, but only 5 (wise ones) “trimmed their lamps” and the other 5 (foolish ones) which didn’t were left by the bridegroom because they were not prepared. As the Bible says, “…and those who were ready went in with him to the marriage feast, and the door was shut.” (Matthew 25:10) Moreover, Jesus rejected their entry into heaven i.e. salvation, because “he did not know them” (Matthew 25:12), and properly instructed us not to be like the foolish men, but to “Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour.” (Matthew 25:13)

Here is the first case (with many more to follow) of seeing everything as talking about the Christian. How would we explain the ten virgins? In explaining the ten virgins the first thing we should do is remember that we (the believers) are not the ten virgins waiting for the groom. We are the BRIDE (Eph 5:22 , 33; Rev 19:7) Yes, the section in Ephesians is addressing how a husband should behave toward his wife, but it does it in the context of the church being the bride of Christ (to be presented in all her glory). No place in the subject parable is the bride talked about.

3. How do we explain the parable of the talents in Matthew 25:14-30? It is obvious that the servants being referred to here were also Christians (servants of God), where God made a distinction between his active, growing servants, and those who were backslidden or lukewarm. The 2 active servants reaped double their own talents that God gave them i.e. the first returned 5 more, the second returned 2 more, while the last servant merely “hid his talent in the ground” (Matthew 25:25). As follows, God was glad with His first 2 servants, but not His last one. What did he tell his last servant? He chastised him, and turned him away from His Kingdom i.e. salvation, “And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.” (Matthew 25: 30) From here, we know that this place is “Hell” and that even Christians are eligible. Something to think about… they were basically just not using their talents! From here, we can see that Jehovah God is a very strict God.

It is not at all obvious that the servants being referred to here were also Christians. Again, saying something doesn’t make it so. First, when Jesus was giving the parable, was He talking to Christians? No. I don’t believe He was. He was talking to Jews. If that is the case, then neither He nor the audience understood Him to be talking about Christianity, salvation, and the loss of that salvation. Was He talking about salvation (as in being born again and stuff)? When Jesus was talking to these folks, there were no Christians. And by what great hermeneutical trick do you make talents (bars of silver) equate to salvation? A couple of the men did good work and one of them did shoddy work. Why isn’t this simply an argument that we have to work for our salvation?

4. How do we explain the parable of the servants in Luke 12:35-48? It is even clearer here when Jesus told us Christians to “Let our loins be girded and our lamps burning, and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the marriage feast, so that they may open to him at once when he comes and knocks.” (Luke 12:35-36) The Bible goes on to talk about the lukewarm, backslidden Christians or Christians who are leading a sinful lifestyle in Luke 12:45-46, “But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of the servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will punish him, and put him with the unfaithful.” Notice that God will put these groups of Christians together with the unfaithful, which means they will be denied of their salvation and entry into heaven. The unfaithful should also include those who are unbelievers.

I’m not at all clear on what exegetical magic you are using to make the master Jesus and the slaves us (Christians). However, if you are going to do that, at least be consistent with some of the rest of Scripture. If it is okay to say the master in the parable represents Jesus (As you do in fact say), then it is also fair to point out that these slave spoken of are not Christians. I would say this because on several occasions we are referred to as the bride of Christ. We were at the wedding, getting married to the master, not back at the house waiting for him to return.

5. How could we then explain the 7 churches in Revelations 2 as I have quoted earlier, and where God says he will spew the lukewarm Christians out of His mouth, and this seems in keeping with the parables mentioned above, that those who do not keep their lamps burning will be left behind. If you read through the passage in Revelations again regarding these 7 churches, it is about 7 groups of believers that God is coming to judge. The nature of the judgement that we see taking place does not presume that all are being saved, and so merely a determination of how much reward you should get based on your good works over and above basic salvation. Instead, verses like “If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent” (Rev 2:5), and “If not, I will come to you soon and war against them with the sword of my mouth” (to those Christians who still hold the teaching of Balaam (Rev 2:16), and “…and I will strike her children dead.” (referring to Christians who still tolerate Jezebel as mentioned earlier) (Rev 2:23), and “If you will not awake, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come upon you.” (Rev 3:3) and even to the Church of Laodicea, where God said to the Christians in that church that “So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.” (Rev 3:16) shows that believers will be losing their salvation, and this is a frightening thought.
=> A further point to note with regards to the 7 churches… notice that the majority of Christians who will be able to receive salvation are only from the Church of Philadelphia.

Two considerations here: Not everyone who names the name of Christ is a Christian. Churches are filled with, and often led by people who are not Christian. I suspect you are making the verses say more than they are really saying. For instance, in Revelation 3:15, one of the verses you refer to, you take the whole luke-warm-spewing thing as the loss of salvation. That is, because the church was luke-warm God is going to separate them. But going with that logic, hot is referring to working for God and cold is working against God. The only condition that results in spewing (loss of salvation) is being luke-warm. Working against God doesn’t get you spewed. Does that really make sense?

6. So in terms of application, although there shouldn’t be unnecessary fear about “Have I lost my salvation?”, “What does it take to lose my Salvation?”, at least this is better than both individuals and churches being lulled into a false sense of security, that no matter what we do or how far we have wondered away from God, or how much sin we are living in, we will still be saved.

Again you build a strawman and smile gleefully when you manage to knock it down. The eternal security position does not promote carelessness or apathy. Rather, if taught accurately, it promotes a love for God (which will translate into a passion for holy living) and a compassion for our fellow men and our fellow Christian. If God can forgive me when I fall short, what rights have I to fail to forgive those who may disappoint me?

7. My conclusion of when one will lose his salvation is that the individual himself will know whether his lamp is burning or is dry. Also, just to clarify, I definitely do not believe that one can be saved by works, but only by believing in your heart, and confessing with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and your personal Saviour, that one can receive salvation. However, to be a believer means to be a disciple of Christ, which is why God instructs us to “make disciples of all nations” because the sheep that he will be separating from the goats on judgement day are believing Christians constantly desiring to follow Christ and His Word, sometimes failing but daily repenting Christians.

Actually, from what you have said, you do believe that people are saved by works. But in this case, the works the nightly repentance you have to go through to make yourself right with God again. If you didn’t do that (from what I can tell of your writing and the contents of several sites you have referred to) and a giant meteor hits the Outback, and you died without repenting, you would go to hell because of unconfessed sin. As I said: in your case, the confessing and repenting are the works that allow you to stay saved.

To end off, I would like to reiterate the words of Paul in his 1st letter to the Corinthian Church, who has forewarned us about such ideas in future:
“By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.” (1 Cor 15:2)

You really should present Scripture in its context. That first verse shouldn’t be read by itself. It is a part of the rest of the chapter. Paul goes on from that verse to talk about what they should believe and how foolish it would be to deny it. That item they should defend” That Jesus was raised from the dead. Apparently some of the people in the church were saying Jesus had not been raised from the dead. And as Paul went on to say:
15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.
16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;
17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.
18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

Christians in today’s society have focused too much on the tremendous love of God, that they have forgotten the strictness of God. We have to know that the God in the OT is still the same as the God in the NT because he never changes. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The Bible never contradicts itself too, and in the light of all biblical evidence, OSAS cannot stand.

I find this last paragraph to be quite fantastic. I could understand it if you had said “We don’t focus enough on the righteousness of God” or perhaps “We fail to consider the consequences of sin” but God is Love. His greatest sacrifice (His son) was made out of Love. His Son gave his life for us because of His love”

To give us some place for a cut-off, the first five comments, not counting me, will be posted. Then I close it to comments.

Posted by Melvin Jones on Friday, September 9th, 2005 at 8:19 am.