[wmfights]

I would agree with you wmfights but I know where Dr. E is coming from.

Thank you.

I think the basic problem is in the OSAS doctrine. It is inconsistent at best. Those who believe you have free will must take the next logical step and say you can lose your faith.

It's a good point.

Many just do not take that step. Nor will they take the step towards election.

As a Baptist I've always held to "once saved always saved" and equated it in terms Reformed would call "preservation of the saints". I hadn't thought about the free will argument because the indwelling Holy Spirit is with us forever. We can't change our minds and drag the Holy Spirit to Hell with us.

[HarleyD]

As a Baptist I've always held to "once saved always saved" and equated it in terms Reformed would call "preservation of the saints". I hadn't thought about the free will argument because the indwelling Holy Spirit is with us forever.

For a very long time I believed in OSAS. PotS was, in fact, one of the most difficult doctrine for me to grasp in Reformed Theology. However, if one thinks how God leads us home, I think there isn't the tension that exists in OSAS. Whereas once-saved-always-saved sound combative, almost insistent that we're saved; preservations of the saints is indicative that we simply rest in the palm of His hand to guide us to the promise land.