Yes and no. Maybe it is a matter of semantics. But the proximate result of the crucifixion would be atonement, not forgiveness. The crucifixion, then, is seen as a redemptive, rather than a soteriological, act. Only when the believer accepts this gift does the crucifixion have a salvational effect in his life -- i.e. his sins are forgiven.
I'm going to all your position "once TRULY saved, always saved", or "OTSAS", to distinguish it from the regular OSAS position. The distinction is that the OSASer believes he can know that he is saved, while the OTSASer believes that he cannot be certain of his own salvation.
The OTSASer theoretically holds that salvation is a one time thing, but views salvation (for practical purposes) in addition to sanctification as an ongoing process. The true "Conditional Salvation" or "CS" believer holds that not only can you not know if you are saved, but that you can be "truly saved" and subsequently lose your salvation. It is this belief that Becky rightly says is depending upon works to "keep" their salvation.
The OSASer believes that forgiveness is a "once for all" thing which occurs when the sinner believes and asks for forgiveness. What follows salvation is sanctification, the process of becoming more perfect, and of building up rewards in heaven. In a sense you could say that to a "saved" person, all sin is venial. The price of this sin is a straining (rather than a severing) of one's relationship with God, and temporal punishment. (I'd be willing to posit a purgatorial-type punishment in these cases).
The first time I was forgiven, then, is not an event from which to draw future forgiveness. The Cross is where to draw future forgiveness from.
You cannot be forgiven until you ask for forgiveness. The first time (in this context) you ask for forgiveness is not the crucifixion, but when you first believe and confess. That singular point is the connection between the general act of redemption and the specific acceptance of the gift of salvation by the individual.
Yes and no. Maybe it is a matter of semantics. But the proximate result of the crucifixion would be atonement, not forgiveness.
But forgiveness is only possible because of the atonement. So it is not the primary result, if you will, of the Crucifixion, but it is a secondary result.
The crucifixion, then, is seen as a redemptive, rather than a soteriological, act. Only when the believer accepts this gift does the crucifixion have a salvational effect in his life -- i.e. his sins are forgiven.
It is both and all of those things. Yes, the believer has to accept the gift, but the acceptance does not merit the redemption. The Crucifixion merits the redemption. These merits from the Crucifixion have an effect on our salvaiton, sanctification, etc. all through our lives.
The OTSASer theoretically holds that salvation is a one time thing, but views salvation (for practical purposes) in addition to sanctification as an ongoing process.
I don't know if I agree that salvation is a "one time" thing. That's the point. If there is "one time," it is when God conceived of the universe.
The first time (in this context) you ask for forgiveness is not the crucifixion, but when you first believe and confess. That singular point is the connection between the general act of redemption and the specific acceptance of the gift of salvation by the individual.
I don't believe in a single point, but rather a continuous stream of connection. Yes, there is a first connection, but it is not the only thread connecting us to the general redemption. Every act which conveys grace is another thread. Each time we go to Communion, another thread connects us. Each confession, redeems us anew and cleanses us. In countless other ways, when we allow God to work through us, we are tapping into this reservoir of grace and estalishing another connection. It is this multiplicity of threads that holds us to God, which is why I would never want to have a single point link. The many connections make us stronger and bring us closer to God.
SD