Have once saved always saved threads ever lead you to change your mind?

[Owen]

Whether you have participated in the discussion or not, I am interested to see if readers of these threads have ever had their mind changed somehow as a result of these threads.

OSAS - Once Saved, Always Saved (belief in eternal security)
NOSAS - Not Once Saved, Always Saved (does not believe in eternal security)

This is NOT a place to debate the topic whatsoever. It is only to discuss the question of whether the discussions change your minds or not.

[slightlypuzzled]

Well, I might have possibly began to think about perusing the idea of turning over in mind any means by whick I could, if moved by the Spirit and circumstances, be able to take a hard look at just maybe beginning to reconsider.....ummm....uhhh now I forgot the question, what was the answer?

[Owen]

Well, I might have possibly began to think about perusing the idea of turning over in mind any means by whick I could, if moved by the Spirit and circumstances, be able to take a hard look at just maybe beginning to reconsider.....ummm....uhhh now I forgot the question, what was the answer?

Sometimes thats how I feel in those threads. "What was original question that we got sidetracked from?"

[Slug1]

I'm NOSAS and have not seen any (convincing) evidence otherwise in any forum(s)

[moonglow]

I was orginally NO-OSAS but due to a discussion on here, I went to OSAS...but I have to say it was based more on a member that I greatly admired that change my mind, rather then a balanced view of scriptures...I reasoned he must be right because he was so rock solid on it...(being stubborn actually...) That was wrong of me to go by an admired member on here. I felt this person had more bibical knowledge then I, did so was seeing something I couldn't understand yet...that was wrong. I think we need to be really careful about following the scriptures and not a person, because people make mistakes.

Later, in getting involved in the discussion again, this time seeing scriptures that proved for a fact a person can reject God and His gift (not lose it as if its taken because you sin too many times like people assume that is what NO-OSAS means), I went back to the NO-OSAS and so far I have seen no scriptures that shows me God forces anyone into Heaven that has rejected Him. Of course this is different then the lost sheep discussed in the bible, the backsliden Christians...this is an ongoing event of totally refusing the gift that they once had. So I am still in that camp...and it was all due to the discussions on this board which of course, included scriptures.

My conclusions were drawn by scriptures posted only...not because I admired a certain member like before, and not due to any arguementanyone put out...just sorely on the scriptures posted and in my own studies of those scriptures.

edited...I forgot to say you didn't have a selection for changing from one to another and back again... but that is ok...too many choices and everyone would confused! lol

God bless

[chal]

Didn't see an option that fit me. Before I decided I studied both sides for about 3 years, and weighed them both against scripture independantly, rather than against each other.

NOSAS reminds me of when I was a kid and my father would tell me, "Boy, you better not give me no sass, or I'll tan your hide!"

I don't like any of the dreaded acronyms, because none of them capture anything close to what I believe. For instance, I do think that it's possible to always be saved, once you are saved, just not necessarily so. Therefore NOSAS doesn't really fit. Let's see maybe we need a new one;

MOSAS (Maybe Once Saved Always Saved). The MOSASic Salvation law?

Nah! That ain't it either.

[Quickened]

I like the discussions! Helped me view things differently! People have alot of insight. Its interesting to read the both sides discuss things.

[Owen]

Didn't see an option that fit me. Before I decided I studied both sides for about 3 years, and weighed them both against scripture independantly, rather than against each other.

NOSAS reminds me of when I was a kid and my father would tell me, "Boy, you better not give me no sass, or I'll tan your hide!"

I don't like any of the dreaded acronyms, because none of them capture anything close to what I believe. For instance, I do think that it's possible to always be saved, once you are saved, just not necessarily so. Therefore NOSAS doesn't really fit. Let's see maybe we need a new one;

MOSAS (Maybe Once Saved Always Saved). The MOSASic Salvation law?

Nah! That ain't it either.

Well, NOSAS (yeah, I don't love the use of acronyms, but I don't want to type it out every single time, but the irony is I just typed all this out ) doesn't mean that one must fall away. It is simply just stating that there is the possibility of falling away.

Now maybe you mean something different, like someone people are OSAS and others are NOSAS.

[chal]

Well, NOSAS (yeah, I don't love the use of acronyms, but I don't want to type it out every single time, but the irony is I just typed all this out ) doesn't mean that one must fall away. It is simply just stating that there is the possibility of falling away.

Now maybe you mean something different, like someone people are OSAS and others are NOSAS.

chal > Yeah kinda like that, but mostly I mean that acronyms are not precise enough and it's easy for others to fall into false assumtions concerning what you believe when you have one or the other on your banner, i.e., it pigeon-holes you into a cramped space that very few people actually fit, yet they are always going to be confronted with the same old circular arguments based on those generalities that the dreaded acronyms carry with them.

I just think that people should argue in a more orderly fashion and not assume that because someone doesn't agree with the acronym that they subscribe to, that this someone necessarily believes everything that is generally attributed to the other, or that standard rhetoric based on those generalities replaces an actual argument with a logical progression. It happens all the time on the board. Going around in circles and gotcha last posting techniques. I usually spend all my limirted posting time pointing out non sequiturs, because sometimes there are pages and pages of usless argument (sometimes very heated) that could have been avoided because they are not grounded in any logical premise. or they are based on false assumtions. It seems that everyone wants to argue too many points simultaneously and many valid points get buried in a pile of useless banner waving rhetoric that no one pays any attention to anyway (and I don't think that debates are the answer. I just mean a more polite and ordely discussion).

[Vickilynn]

I'm NOSAS and have not seen any (convincing) evidence otherwise in any forum(s)

Shalom,

Yup. Exactly what my Brother said.

[Keemah]

I have always been NOSAS, and always will be. There are far too many Scriptures supporting it to make it possible to change my mind.

[humbled]

I haven't been counting long, but I count 5 who always believed NOSAS and 6 that always believed OSAS .... tho the poll says 6 NOSAS and 4 OSAS.

Wierd ...

[Vickilynn]

I haven't been counting long, but I count 5 who always believed NOSAS and 6 that always believed OSAS .... tho the poll says 6 NOSAS and 4 OSAS.

Wierd ...

Shalom Brother,

Not everyone who votes posts and vice versa.

[humbled]

Shalom Brother,

Not everyone who votes posts and vice versa.

It doesn't only count the ones who post, does it? I thought it counted the ones who vote.

[Owen]

I haven't been counting long, but I count 5 who always believed NOSAS and 6 that always believed OSAS .... tho the poll says 6 NOSAS and 4 OSAS.

Wierd ...

slightlypuzzled earlier accidentally voted the wrong option and seemed to have changed it, though it didn't register his name with the change. And ballewjordan's vote somehow got lost in the tally. So it is in fact 6 NOSAS and 5 OSAS on the last two.