Once Saved always Saved

[FenderPriest]

P-Perserverance Of The Saints (once saved always saved) Actually, it's Perseverance of the Saints. Once we're saved, we'll persevere on in our faith by the help of the Holy Spirit until the end.

Aka - O.S.A.S

Completely different, and I think you know that.  Your just being cynical.

No, they're not "completely" different in the slightest.

"Once we're saved" (OS of OSAS) "we'll persevere on in our faith by the help of the Holy Spirit until the end" (basically a phrase that certainly implies the "always" but without actually saying the word)

I think what is happening here is that your statement here Swalchy flattens out a distinction that is important to make between OSAS and PotS.  In what you’ve presented, faith is not defined, nor given a place of origin.  From my reading, OSAS always focuses strictly on the confession of faith in Christ by a believer, and seeks to assure them that the moment of confession (in obedience to the promise in Romans 10) is a teathering of their souls eternally to Christ.  The essence of it focuses, if we can use the analogy, on the birthing of a Christian only.  It seeks to get the baby out of the womb, and assure it of its first few breaths.  This doctrine is almost only ever taught by Arminians, particularly southern Baptists arminians that have gone astray, yet keeping some of the family jewels, of their founding Calvinist fathers.

Calvinists, on the other hand, locate faith in two places in their reply to the Arminians declarations in the TULIP.  They locate faith in the Irresistible call of grace, and in the Perseverance of the saint, and for good reason.  The moment we come to Christ, it is a work of grace and an act of the Holy Spirit on our hearts to regenerate us to see Christ in his fullness and excellency for the need of the soul.  This is done not by the invitation of the believer – though it may ‘feel’ as such at the time.  It is a sovereign miracle.  The persistence in faith, and the continuation in the ‘fruits of repentance’ and the ‘fruits of grace’ in their lives is the doctrine of the Perseverance of the Saints.  It is a different aspect of faith, though naturally connected to it.  The perseverance of the saints is the fruit bearing to show the new birth, but is not itself the new birth.  Thus, you see, what the OSAS advocate teaches in the assurance of faith in its original confession is what Calvinists would see as being a part of the Irresistible call of grace, not the Perseverance of the Saints.  The doctrines (OSAS and PotS) are similar, but aiming at two different things, and thus should not be made to be equative. 

There could be more said here about the nature of faith, and how OSAS is appealing to Arminians because of its play on the feeling of faith, but I don’t have time or desire to explain or go into that at the moment.  I’m still on vacation, and am only stopping in for a moment.  I’ll post this over in the thread dedicated to it as well, where discussion on this should continue.

Yours,
Jacob

[jadwight]

If you are saved once and saved always then it is not possible to backslide, is it? Is the concept of backsliding is not possible for those who believed in secure salvation?

Christians can backslide without God correcting them into holiness (ref. Romans 7:7-25).  They may backslide, but they will not be consumed by it because their new identity is in Christ, not sin.

than why is that when a demon leaves a man 7 more come back with him? When you backslide you open the door for everything else... this is because you just broke the bridge between you and god, sin separates us from god. I believe this is why you can drink a little and then next thing you know your full blown druggie... sure it starts with the spirit of temptation and the spirit of alcoholism, but then 7 more come back and next thing you know this guy is into pornography, lust, and everything else... why? because 7 more spirits came back.

If it were once saved always saved then what happened to satan? He was an angel... but he rebelled against god's will... We are born into sin which gives us a natural pull towards sin. Sin is what separates us from God's presence

[Brother TJ]

If you are saved once and saved always then it is not possible to backslide, is it? Is the concept of backsliding is not possible for those who believed in secure salvation?

Christians can backslide without God correcting them into holiness (ref. Romans 7:7-25).  They may backslide, but they will not be consumed by it because their new identity is in Christ, not sin.

than why is that when a demon leaves a man 7 more come back with him? When you backslide you open the door for everything else... this is because you just broke the bridge between you and god, sin separates us from god. I believe this is why you can drink a little and then next thing you know your full blown druggie... sure it starts with the spirit of temptation and the spirit of alcoholism, but then 7 more come back and next thing you know this guy is into pornography, lust, and everything else... why? because 7 more spirits came back.

If it were once saved always saved then what happened to satan? He was an angel... but he rebelled against god's will... We are born into sin which gives us a natural pull towards sin. Sin is what separates us from God's presence

Absolutely not. Sin is what puts us under God's WRATH.

Stop this evangelical mumbo-jumbo.

If God sets us apart before our birth (Galatians) and Jesus will lose none of the people God gives Him (John), than HOW can one lose salvation.

*Jeopardy music*

[Swalchy]

Absolutely not. Sin is what puts us under God's WRATH.

No, Sin is what separates us from God.

It sunders our relationship with Him.

[Brother TJ]

Absolutely not. Sin is what puts us under God's WRATH.

No, Sin is what separates us from God.

It sunders our relationship with Him.

Nope.

[Swalchy]

So, Sin doesn't separate us from God or sunder our relationship with Him?

Oh dear...

[Brother TJ]

So, Sin doesn't separate us from God or sunder our relationship with Him?

Oh dear...

It seperate-D

We have no relationship with God before conversion, at least not a good one. We are totally depraved.

[Matthew]

2 Peter 3:17 "Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position."

I don't know if this verse has been discussed already on this thread but what do you guys make of it?

[FenderPriest]

2 Peter 3:17 "Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position."

I don't know if this verse has been discussed already on this thread but what do you guys make of it?

The context of this passage is as such:

14 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

Verse 17 is a warning of being deceived by wicked and twisted doctrine that uses Scripture (plentifully, I might add) to make it seem like the true doctrine of Christ, and the true faith.  We are to be on guard against this because to believe their lies and false teaching is to put us on shaky grounds in knowing God and enjoying his grace.  Only true doctrine is our stability and secure ground. The translation you've used uses language that would seem to be contrary to the doctrine of the Security of the Saints, but even it's own use and context proves to not teach that.  Anyhow, that's the passage, a warning against false teachers and apostasy - even when they have loads of Scripture references, websites, blogs, books, teachers, etc. to "back up" what they're saying.

[Matthew]

The context of this passage is as such:

14 Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

Verse 17 is a warning of being deceived by wicked and twisted doctrine that uses Scripture (plentifully, I might add) to make it seem like the true doctrine of Christ, and the true faith.  We are to be on guard against this because to believe their lies and false teaching is to put us on shaky grounds in knowing God and enjoying his grace.  Only true doctrine is our stability and secure ground. The translation you've used uses language that would seem to be contrary to the doctrine of the Security of the Saints, but even it's own use and context proves to not teach that.  Anyhow, that's the passage, a warning against false teachers and apostasy - even when they have loads of Scripture references, websites, blogs, books, teachers, etc. to "back up" what they're saying.

Good one Fender! I should've known better to check other versions and context on the matter.

[Derrin]

You guys seem older, and I'm bound to make a mistake here and there in what I say (possibly), so don't hesitate to correct anything that's an error on my part.  Apologies and thanks in advance.

I think that to be saved you have to keep a commitment to God.  God knows your heart, and what you think, so you truly have to keep your side of the relationship with God open.  I have two uncles who went were saved (or atleast, they claimed they were; I know one of them was saved for certain) and they both went to a college to study for ministry involvement - just like my step dad, their brother.  Unfortunately, they didn't last long, and lost sight of God or got discouraged by a bad image that Christianity might have shown.  They quit before either of them had gone for longer than two years, and have a completely different life now.

One is now living on the West coast of the U.S. and makes flutes for a living; he has no idea what he really is about, and does not go to church and lives a pretty laidback, but disappointing life.  The other is now a successful engineer in the States, but has no time for any of his family or for himself.  Both of them have completely turned away from God, and sadly, I think they don't enjoy their life one bit.

I was just giving an example of how I've known people who have been so on fire for God at first, but then they turned away from that and went for their own ambitions (and one of them still has no idea what he really is doing).  I hope that they will get back on track with God, but I don't consider them a Christian anymore.

I know some of you believe in being saved and always saved, but how are you going to explain to me that they are still saved, even though they deny any relationship with God?

[Brother TJ]

Verse 17 is a warning of being deceived by wicked and twisted doctrine that uses Scripture (plentifully, I might add) to make it seem like the true doctrine of Christ, and the true faith.  We are to be on guard against this because to believe their lies and false teaching is to put us on shaky grounds in knowing God and enjoying his grace.  Only true doctrine is our stability and secure ground. The translation you've used uses language that would seem to be contrary to the doctrine of the Security of the Saints, but even it's own use and context proves to not teach that.  Anyhow, that's the passage, a warning against false teachers and apostasy - even when they have loads of Scripture references, websites, blogs, books, teachers, etc. to "back up" what they're saying.

So they are still saved even though they are following the wicked?

[FenderPriest]

Verse 17 is a warning of being deceived by wicked and twisted doctrine that uses Scripture (plentifully, I might add) to make it seem like the true doctrine of Christ, and the true faith.  We are to be on guard against this because to believe their lies and false teaching is to put us on shaky grounds in knowing God and enjoying his grace.  Only true doctrine is our stability and secure ground. The translation you've used uses language that would seem to be contrary to the doctrine of the Security of the Saints, but even it's own use and context proves to not teach that.  Anyhow, that's the passage, a warning against false teachers and apostasy - even when they have loads of Scripture references, websites, blogs, books, teachers, etc. to "back up" what they're saying.

So they are still saved even though they are following the wicked?

I would say yes for various reasons with a few qualifications.  They may be deceived and repent of their error in the future (near or far).  This gets into our understanding of heresy and apostasy, which I posted my views about in the thread on Heresy.  There are those who follow out of ignorance, and those who lead knowingly of the issues at hand - they shall be judged differently.  On this topic I think John Piper did a great message on this issue at the Resurgence Conf. this year which you can download via their pod cast , here, or here.

~Jacob

[Brother TJ]

Verse 17 is a warning of being deceived by wicked and twisted doctrine that uses Scripture (plentifully, I might add) to make it seem like the true doctrine of Christ, and the true faith.  We are to be on guard against this because to believe their lies and false teaching is to put us on shaky grounds in knowing God and enjoying his grace.  Only true doctrine is our stability and secure ground. The translation you've used uses language that would seem to be contrary to the doctrine of the Security of the Saints, but even it's own use and context proves to not teach that.  Anyhow, that's the passage, a warning against false teachers and apostasy - even when they have loads of Scripture references, websites, blogs, books, teachers, etc. to "back up" what they're saying.

So they are still saved even though they are following the wicked?

I would say yes for various reasons with a few qualifications.  They may be deceived and repent of their error in the future (near or far).  This gets into our understanding of heresy and apostasy, which I posted my views about in the thread on Heresy.  There are those who follow out of ignorance, and those who lead knowingly of the issues at hand - they shall be judged differently.  On this topic I think John Piper did a great message on this issue at the Resurgence Conf. this year which you can download via their pod cast , here, or here.

~Jacob

So a Charismatic can become a Jehovah's Witness (believe that Jesus is the un-divine Michael the arch angel) and still be saved?

I'm confused because always thought Paul was warning people that they can lose their faith, but not their salvation. He never said God cuts us off, but he says you can follow a false gospel to destruction. Therefore, we are still, through moral responsibility, in control of our faith, but not our salvation.

[FenderPriest]

Verse 17 is a warning of being deceived by wicked and twisted doctrine that uses Scripture (plentifully, I might add) to make it seem like the true doctrine of Christ, and the true faith.  We are to be on guard against this because to believe their lies and false teaching is to put us on shaky grounds in knowing God and enjoying his grace.  Only true doctrine is our stability and secure ground. The translation you've used uses language that would seem to be contrary to the doctrine of the Security of the Saints, but even it's own use and context proves to not teach that.  Anyhow, that's the passage, a warning against false teachers and apostasy - even when they have loads of Scripture references, websites, blogs, books, teachers, etc. to "back up" what they're saying.

So they are still saved even though they are following the wicked?

I would say yes for various reasons with a few qualifications.  They may be deceived and repent of their error in the future (near or far).  This gets into our understanding of heresy and apostasy, which I posted my views about in the thread on Heresy.  There are those who follow out of ignorance, and those who lead knowingly of the issues at hand - they shall be judged differently.  On this topic I think John Piper did a great message on this issue at the Resurgence Conf. this year which you can download via their pod cast , here, or here.

~Jacob

So a Charismatic can become a Jehovah's Witness (believe that Jesus is the un-divine Michael the arch angel) and still be saved?

I'm confused because always thought Paul was warning people that they can lose their faith, but not their salvation. He never said God cuts us off, but he says you can follow a false gospel to destruction. Therefore, we are still, through moral responsibility, in control of our faith, but not our salvation.

A true faith and a true salvation go hand in hand.  I think you've created a false dichotomy between faith and salvation.  Faith is the fruit of regeneration - a true spiritual regeneration will produce a true, Christ-exulting, persevering faith. Because salvation is a work of grace, faith is the evidence of being saved, the experiential cause placed in Christ.  If you look at Hebrews 4, it speaks to those who had experienced God's blessing and yet had unbelief and were cut off - this is the case for those who hear the Gospel, taste it, but walk away.  They may make correct professions of faith, but they prove their profession a false witness to their inner condition by walking away at some point.  Hence, John says, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19).  What you've done in your distinction and description is say that someone can be saved without showing the fruits of true salvation and repentance, which are continual faith and trust in the work of Christ for salvation and enjoyment of God (the Gospel).  God is responsible for our salvation, and he produces faith in his elect as an evidence of his work.  If someone says they have salvation while not having the fruits of it, they are like Talkative from Pilgrim's Progress - all talk, no substance.

As for your specific example, if someone did that in my fellowship, I would respond like this: First, I would approach them about it, talk through the seriousness of their claims, and call them to repent of their sin.  If they continue, bring more folks to implore their repentance. After walking through the process, the church would finally excommunicate them from the fellowship (even if they had already left and closed relationship with the church) as a public declaration of the seriousness of that person's offense against Christ, a clear line of what is and what is not "a Christian", and a call to that person to repent and believe.  This would be God's work to speak severe judgment upon that person - either to final restoration with Christ, or final apostasy.  This is Paul's teaching from 1 Corinthians.  And, in most cases, people turn back and repent.

Now, I can anticipate the next question, "So what about Arminians?" I don't see these errors as the same.  Arminians - good, solidly confessional Arminians can be Christians and many are.  I think they're wrong and offend the pure Gospel (which I imagine they think about me! - except I'm right).  There are many examples of folks on this forum that I think are dead wrong on foundational issues and yet good, godly, Christ-honoring Christians. 

Maybe this helps,
~Jacob

[Brother TJ]

Paragraph One: Sort of. It's still confusing. I know the Bible speaks of going away from the faith so I assumed that salvation and faith were different. They both were from God but a false convert can have faith in God but lacks salvation. Judas had faith it seems. I get and agree with what you wrote though. BTW, that Piper sermon didn't help at all though. Maybe because I was studying for my final at the time...

I understand paragraph two. I read that in Matthew - I think.

Paragraph three... there are two Calvinists in my campus fellowship. Everyone else is Arminian. From my personal experience, I don't want to hear any of them teach anything, though there are Arminian preachers I like. They are all happy-go-lucky, scripture-twisting flakes who love Rob Bell and Blue Like Jazz. Don't worry, they don't like me either. I got into an argument at dinner (that I tried to avoid) over who Jesus elected and who He died for. Because I have a pretentious attitude (and quote King James), I came off extremely arrogant and stuck-up about it, so they hate me even more. One guy said if the Calvinist God is real, he doesn't want to worship Him.

[FenderPriest]

Paragraph One: Sort of. It's still confusing. I know the Bible speaks of going away from the faith so I assumed that salvation and faith were different. They both were from God but a false convert can have faith in God but lacks salvation. Judas had faith it seems. I get and agree with what you wrote though. BTW, that Piper sermon didn't help at all though. Maybe because I was studying for my final at the time...

You might appreciate it more a second time, a little less distracted! As for faith/salvation language, you might want to do a little reading into how the NT speaks about "the faith" and check with some commentaries on the verses you're thinking of because it's used (as you know) in many different ways.  "The faith" is not always speaking about personal faith in Christ.

Paragraph three... there are two Calvinists in my campus fellowship. Everyone else is Arminian. From my personal experience, I don't want to hear any of them teach anything, though there are Arminian preachers I like. They are all happy-go-lucky, scripture-twisting flakes who love Rob Bell and Blue Like Jazz. Don't worry, they don't like me either. I got into an argument at dinner over who Jesus elected and who He died for. Because I have a pretentious attitude (and quote King James), I came off extremely arrogant and stuck-up about it, so they hate me even more.

That wouldn't be surprising if they did.  It's a call from God to grow in humility. That was my experience as well.  I don't typically listen to Arminians for the same reasons - though I do listen to McLaren and Bell from time to time to check in on what they're saying and teaching.  Otherwise, I don't listen to any Arminian preachers/teachers/writers. 

[Derrin]

Many thanks for explaining to me that my family is alright.  Yes, that's sarcasm for any of you that aren't sure.

[Matthew]

11Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!

 13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.

 17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

 22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. 23And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!

Note verse 17 onwards. Do you guys think this passage plays a part in this OSAS debate? It seems to say a person can be grafted into the family then because of unbelief be broken off.

[FenderPriest]

Note verse 17 onwards. Do you guys think this passage plays a part in this OSAS debate? It seems to say a person can be grafted into the family then because of unbelief be broken off.

Maybe.  I think two things here: 1) This passage/section is about redemptive history and eschatological realities of what it means to be "Israel".  2) A warning in Scripture against falling away isn't a granting that it will/can happen.  Scripture uses warnings to prevent things from happening but emphasizing the severity of the situation. 

[bamshak]

just joined this thread,

i think we may all be right, but we need to understand what we are saying first before we can place our argument,what i think is this:

being saved is dying with Christ and resurrecting with Him having this new life in Christ,
like Paul said, the life i now live is not mine, but Christ lives within me. if only we can all view salvation as this, i mean, as dead to your old life and resurrecting with Christ, then Christ is our LORD indeed, and if He is our LORD, we'll obey His every word and command,not by our strength but because of the SPIRIT OF GOD that now dwells in us,

then we can say, once saved (i mean truly saved), then always saved, but one cannot say he/she is saved from sin and death and still live in sin, then we can say the person is not yet saved,

Of course, Christ died for the whole world, but it takes one to make the choice of accepting Christ as our LORD, so claiming to be saved and still live in sin is just a joke and a funny one at that.

i think if we can all reason this whole thing as i have just suggested, then we'll agree, that once you are truly saved, you're saved.

And if one is saved, he lives for Christ, and in times of weakness and temptations, the Son stills intercedes for such a person. but you have to first accept CHRIST's offer.

[Matthew]

Note verse 17 onwards. Do you guys think this passage plays a part in this OSAS debate? It seems to say a person can be grafted into the family then because of unbelief be broken off.

Maybe.  I think two things here: 1) This passage/section is about redemptive history and eschatological realities of what it means to be "Israel".  2) A warning in Scripture against falling away isn't a granting that it will/can happen.  Scripture uses warnings to prevent things from happening but emphasizing the severity of the situation. 

I'm reminded of passages in Deuteronomy (like chapter 28) in which God says that if they rebel certain bad things will happen, and if you look into Israel's history all these things have happened to them. A warning that actually proved to be prophetic in nature.

But then Hebrews 6:4-8 does confirm that a person can become "saved" and then fall away. In by "fallen away" I take it to mean a person has gone to the stage of not wanting any part in God's kingdom anymore, chosen to turn their back, become so stubborn that they wouldn't repent even if asked. In the end they'll be burned, verse 8. But it also says some are in danger of falling away, just a little backsliden I guess but still open to a change of heart.

[FenderPriest]

Note verse 17 onwards. Do you guys think this passage plays a part in this OSAS debate? It seems to say a person can be grafted into the family then because of unbelief be broken off.

Maybe.  I think two things here: 1) This passage/section is about redemptive history and eschatological realities of what it means to be "Israel".  2) A warning in Scripture against falling away isn't a granting that it will/can happen.  Scripture uses warnings to prevent things from happening but emphasizing the severity of the situation. 

I'm reminded of passages in Deuteronomy (like chapter 28) in which God says that if they rebel certain bad things will happen, and if you look into Israel's history all these things have happened to them. A warning that actually proved to be prophetic in nature.

But then Hebrews 6:4-8 does confirm that a person can become "saved" and then fall away. In by "fallen away" I take it to mean a person has gone to the stage of not wanting any part in God's kingdom anymore, chosen to turn their back, become so stubborn that they wouldn't repent even if asked. In the end they'll be burned, verse 8. But it also says some are in danger of falling away, just a little backsliden I guess but still open to a change of heart.

I disagree that the man in Hebrews 6:4-8 is saved.  He "tasted" and "partook" but did not "eat" or "consume".  He was on the edge, and we have every right to believe him a Christian, but he proves to have never partook of the grace of the Gospel and becomes doubly deserving of Hell.

[Thorns]

Note verse 17 onwards. Do you guys think this passage plays a part in this OSAS debate? It seems to say a person can be grafted into the family then because of unbelief be broken off.

Maybe.  I think two things here: 1) This passage/section is about redemptive history and eschatological realities of what it means to be "Israel".  2) A warning in Scripture against falling away isn't a granting that it will/can happen.  Scripture uses warnings to prevent things from happening but emphasizing the severity of the situation. 

I'm reminded of passages in Deuteronomy (like chapter 28) in which God says that if they rebel certain bad things will happen, and if you look into Israel's history all these things have happened to them. A warning that actually proved to be prophetic in nature.

But then Hebrews 6:4-8 does confirm that a person can become "saved" and then fall away. In by "fallen away" I take it to mean a person has gone to the stage of not wanting any part in God's kingdom anymore, chosen to turn their back, become so stubborn that they wouldn't repent even if asked. In the end they'll be burned, verse 8. But it also says some are in danger of falling away, just a little backsliden I guess but still open to a change of heart.

I disagree that the man in Hebrews 6:4-8 is saved.  He "tasted" and "partook" but did not "eat" or "consume".  He was on the edge, and we have every right to believe him a Christian, but he proves to have never partook of the grace of the Gospel and becomes doubly deserving of Hell.

You can be a Christian without grace?

Why should I believe that a biblical promise is true, pure and trustworthy if I don't believe the warnings are just as true, pure and trustworthy?

[buzz_bender]

Note verse 17 onwards. Do you guys think this passage plays a part in this OSAS debate? It seems to say a person can be grafted into the family then because of unbelief be broken off.

Maybe.  I think two things here: 1) This passage/section is about redemptive history and eschatological realities of what it means to be "Israel".  2) A warning in Scripture against falling away isn't a granting that it will/can happen.  Scripture uses warnings to prevent things from happening but emphasizing the severity of the situation. 

I'm reminded of passages in Deuteronomy (like chapter 28) in which God says that if they rebel certain bad things will happen, and if you look into Israel's history all these things have happened to them. A warning that actually proved to be prophetic in nature.

But then Hebrews 6:4-8 does confirm that a person can become "saved" and then fall away. In by "fallen away" I take it to mean a person has gone to the stage of not wanting any part in God's kingdom anymore, chosen to turn their back, become so stubborn that they wouldn't repent even if asked. In the end they'll be burned, verse 8. But it also says some are in danger of falling away, just a little backsliden I guess but still open to a change of heart.

I disagree that the man in Hebrews 6:4-8 is saved.  He "tasted" and "partook" but did not "eat" or "consume".  He was on the edge, and we have every right to believe him a Christian, but he proves to have never partook of the grace of the Gospel and becomes doubly deserving of Hell.

You can be a Christian without grace?

Why should I believe that a biblical promise is true, pure and trustworthy if I don't believe the warnings are just as true, pure and trustworthy?

I think what Fender is saying that one can be "saved" from certain consequences of sin in this world, but are never saved from the final judgement and gain eternal life.

So, for example, the person would gladly join a church, leave his past life behind, embrace the "Christian" lifestyle, and yet, at the same time, not profess Christ as Lord and Saviour. So, the person is "saved" (not in the eternal sense) from the temporal consequences of his sins, but as Hebrews would put it, never enter the rest in Jesus.

Just like how the Israelites were saved from slavery from Egypt, but they never did enter the promised land and rest. Only the next generation did. So, in some sense, they were "saved", but did not gain the promised land/rest.

D.A. Carson covers this quite well in his Hebrews exposition.