James 2 And OSAS

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

4 Questions


Those who teach conditional salvation often avoid specifics. How would they answer the following questions:


i) What sin causes loss of salvation?


A theft? A swear word? A lie? Ten lies? 50 lies? No specific uniform answers are available, indicating the unsound foundation on which this error is built.


ii) How does loss of salvation become known to an individual?


Again, solid answers are not there, only nebulous suggestions.


iii) How is salvation recovered?


If salvation is through believing, how does one ‘believe again’? No one who has had Christ revealed to his soul could ever ‘believe again’. Interestingly, some cults who teach baptismal regeneration and conditional salvation do not insist on rebaptism once a ‘backslider’ has been ‘restored’. In other words, baptism is essential for salvation first time around, but not the second time


iv) Where in scripture is there an example of a true believer losing his salvation and then being saved again?

Before addressing these questions, let me establish the terms and their meanings. Salvation - being saved from the wages of sin, DEATH and being gifted with age lasting life from God thru His Anointed One, Jesus.

I propose that the scriptures teach that salvation is a gift that is not received in this life. The scriptures teach that assurance of a future salvation could be received in this life but not that salvation is realized in the here and now. The assurance was based on Jesus' conquering death makingage lasting life a reality for all who believe and obey.

So now, to answer your questions.

1. What sin caused the loss of salvation?
answer: Unfaithfulness.
A better question centers around what causes salvation to be realized. The completed work of Jesus coupled with the believer's faithfulness LEADS TO salvation. Jesus' work is done, but a believer's faithfulness is an ongoing process. When the process is stopped, so too is the assurance of the salvation that awaits. When one finally realizes salvation, it likely cannot be lost (but again, that doesn't happen in this life).

2. How does loss of salvation become known to an individual?

3. How is salvation recovered?
answer: The same way it is received.
Through faith and trust in the Lord that causes one to live a life of submission and obedience to the Lord.

4. Where in scripture is there an example of a true believer losing his salvation and then being saved again?
answer: This is easy to answer, NOWHERE. But the question is problematic because nowhere in scripture are we shown any individual aside from perhaps Jesus Himself that had already received the gift of salvation. We are told "at the end of your faith" the salvation of one's soul will be realized (1 Peter 1:9).

 

[francisdesales]

One should look at the context

Yes, and here it is in Context.
John 6:64-66

New King James Version (NKJV)

64 But there are some of you who do not believe.†For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. 65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.â€
66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

The point is that JESUS knew this. Not the followers. The same can be applied today. Many people THINK they are following Jesus but are not doing the will of the Father (Matt 7:21). Thus, those who think they are following Jesus can certainly choose NOT to follow Jesus at a later date. The point, again, is that just because you follow today does not mean you will follow next month, esp. when faced with a "difficult teaching".

In addition, the original Scripture that was supposedly a "proof text" for OSAS is not at all. Jesus HIMSELF clarifies this later in the Garden during His betrayal.

Here is the supposed proof text that shows that no one can fall away.

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day John 6:37-39

Here is Jesus explaining WHO is not going to be lost:

Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way: That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none. John 18:8-9

Earlier, Jesus states only the "son of perdition" will be lost in this context...

Clearly, Jesus is talking about the Apostles in John 6. According to our Lord. Not people of today.

Regards

 

[farouk]

Are you in disagreement with James and believe that an inactive faith CAN save a person?

What faith saved Rahab. Believing that God was the one true God and that her salvation could only be found in Him. Because of the belief she stepped out in faith. It was her faith that saved her and through that faith she acted. We do not hear that she ever did one other act of faith only this one that saved her from death.

James teaching is clearly given to the unbelievers in the audience that needed to move their head knowledge to heart knowledge.

PS, not her faith that saved but God by grace through her faith

Deborah13:

Hebrews 11 says it, about Rahab.

Blessings.

 

[Deborah13]

The point is that JESUS knew this. Not the followers

So from this scripture and by what you say, "they thought they were following", doesn't that say they were "never saved"?

Jesus had died yet and the Holy Spirit had not been given either. They were not sealed by the Holy Spirit, either.

This is what I wonder. Could Israel either as a nation or individually, get out of the covenant they had entered into with God?

Can a new covenant believer who by their own free will has entered into a covenant with Jesus get out of that covenant? Is part of that covenant Your will not mine. That we now belong to Him. Should the prudent man have known what he was getting into?

God uses a lot of legal terms in His system. Can we just walk out on the covenant of grace without the Lord using His authority over us? Like putting on the pressure for us to fulfill our part of the covenant? Our part is to rest in Him by having faith that Jesus is our redeemer and all good things come through Him.

Did we give Him that authority in our lives just like the Hebrew children did?

Lord I want you in my life, I want to be your child, I accept you as my Father.......Father have authority in their children lives.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Guest]

It affects me through love, mercy and peace that the Lord shows me.

Thats the real stuff, urk. Look close at the scriptures and that is the proof of our union with the Lord.


Ro 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[dadof10]

It seems like you have to choose between the two, OSAS or sola-fide. You can't interpret James 2 the standard Protestant way and keep both.

We shouldn't feel too bad about our problems with James. Martin Luther was so upset with James that he cut the whole book out of his Bible and put it in the appendix. He couldn't see how James could such things in the light of the cross. Luther taught grace and faith salvation.

That he cut a whole book of inspired, God-breathed Scripture out of his Bible, should tell you something about him.

If we think that the things James said can disprove OSAS then we are saying that James is teaching 'works' salvation. There is no way of getting around that fact. So James is teaching old covenant to believers? No

I see James as teaching to old covenant Jews that all their works are nothing without knowing Jesus. That their knowing God (religiously) is dead faith, as even the demons believe. Head knowledge compared to heart knowledge.

I think we need to remember that not all scripture is directed at us as an individual. James as any good preacher will speak to both the believer and the unbeliever, to the saved and the unsaved.
Can we really think that James was teaching 'justified by works' and yet the Pharisees killed him by throwing him off a roof because he would not denounce his teachings? Justification by works was right up their alley.

James had an extremely hard job. Here he was trying to teach 'saved by grace through faith' to dyed in the wool, old covenant Jews in Jerusalem. Remember when he told Paul to pay for the sacrifices for four men and Paul also participated if I remember correctly. So was James teaching a mixture of law and grace. No, he and Paul where doing what needed to be done to convert the Jews. 'When in Rome...' Paul even states that he becomes whatever he needs to in order to bring the gospel of the people. That was pretty much what I did when I went to church with the Mormon lads I was witnessing too and that is what saved by grace believers do when they stay in their denomination church in order to be witnesses to others in that church.

James has to be read with the cross always before us. To say that James is preaching against OSAS is to say that James is preaching 'justification by works' and didn't understand grace and the cross.

I don't think James has OSAS in his mind at all, let alone teaching either for or against it. He is simply reacting to others ("shallow man") who are taking Paul's "faith v. works" teaching too far.

Let's start here, Deb. How do you interpret these two verses?

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?"
"And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?"

What does the word "justified" mean here? Does James use it the same way Paul does in, say, Romans?

 

[Deborah13]

What does the word "justified" mean here? Does James use it the same way Paul does in, say, Romans?

Justified to me means to be found righteous. I am found righteous in Christ, how about you?

I did a very long post on what I believe James was teaching about faith. He used Abraham and Rahab specifically to teach the believers and the unbelievers respectively.
He was encouraging them and instructing in matters of faith yes. So how little faith did it take for Rahab to be justified?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If you define "justified" in James as "shown to be righteous", then OSAS is false. If you define "justified" in James as "made/declared righteous" then sola-fide is false because James is using the word in the same way Paul does. This definition puts righteousness onto the believer on the basis of their works. Gotta get back to work, lunch break over. I'll explain in more detail later.

Now you know why I'm (unofficially) non-OSAS, and, 'shown' to be righteous in regard to 'justified' in James' letter. I'm not hemmed in by OSAS so it's easy for me to see and accept that 'justified' in James' letter means 'to be shown to be righteous' and have no fear of violating a belief that to fall from faith means you were never saved in the first place. OSAS has to take a dive before sola-fida (as we Protestants define that) in how I see it.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

No. But on the basis of a faith that can't, and doesn't, produce works. But to most in the church the only word they can hear in that is 'works' and that it means 'works salvation'.

That is what this whole thread is about trying to prove through James' teaching that OSAS can't be true because one must do works in order to have saving faith.

No, I think the point of the thread is if you believe that 'justified' in James' letter means 'showing that you are righteous' (as opposed to 'being made righteous') then you can't also believe in OSAS.

Jeez Jethro, I thought you didn't believe that works could save you? I thought you believed Eph, 2:8-9. I must have been wrong. Sorry.

You did not think incorrectly. We are justified by the blood of Christ applied through the 'work' of faith all by itself. But that faith--the faith that justifies all by itself-- MUST be seen in what it does or it can't be the faith that justifies all by itself because justifying faith changes a person. If you can't demonstrate that change, you may not have the faith that saves. That is what James is teaching.

Dadof10 is making the point that to believe this means you can't be OSAS. I personally don't have a problem with that conclusion. That conclusion has nothing to do with whether the works that must accompany saving faith do the actual work of making a person righteous, or if the faith all by itself does that. Either way, works must accompany saving faith. And you can't be OSAS if you believe that. That's the point.

 

[dadof10]

Again, you can't have it both ways. Either James means we can prove we have a "saving faith" by our actions, which means OSAS is false IF we can "show" even one person who "showed" his faith then backslid (which is pretty common), or:

James is teaching our "works" actually make or declare us righteous before God.

It seems like you have to choose between the two, OSAS or sola-fide. You can't interpret James 2 the standard Protestant way and keep both.

Why can't 'shown to be righteous' be retained in the passage, preserving sola-fida, and OSAS discarded?

It can. That's my point. There are only two definitions of "justified" that I know of. One is "shown to be righteous", the other is "declared/made actually righteous". If James means the former, then OSAS is false. If James means the latter, then by "works" Abraham and Rahab were made/declared righteous.

I know from our other discussions that our point of difference is in the meaning of 'sola fida'.

Maybe not. As I said, I was so busy arguing that I may have missed some nuances of your theology.

I know in my own life I did things deserving death. There is no amount of work I could have done to atone for that, except the work of believing in the blood of Christ and being justified freely by the love and mercy of God.

Ahhh...Works salvation.

Therefore, legal justification for the one who can't pay the price of the sin that deserves death can only come by the blood of Christ. And we access that blood by our faith in that blood. That is what sola fida means to us Protestants--faith in the blood of Christ for legal justification, all by itself.

That's right. I remember now. I posted verses on a previous thread showing that, to Paul, justification was more of a familial covenant and less of a legal declaration. This is where we differ.

What you describe above, I would call initial justification. Do we agree?

From here that faith, that justifies all by itself, must be signified by a change of nature, or else it's clear that faith is not of the kind that can save, and effect the change genuine faith in Christ effects, but which we claim did. And to no longer have the change that saving faith effects in a person is to signify an abandonment of the faith that effects that change.

When you say "from here", you seem to be describing your initial justification moving into your relationship with Christ. Do you mean the faith you have MUST grow or it dies? The way I see it is that our faith must bear fruit (good deeds) and we must consciously obey Christ, ever growing in our love through our actions. Do you agree with this? It seems at least close to what you are saying, with maybe more emphasis on obedience???

 

[Butch5]

Ahhh, the argument from silence.

You insist on making up your own positions rather than having examples in writing from scripture?

lol

s

The Scriptures have been given, I'm waiting for yours.

 

[dadof10]

What does the word "justified" mean here? Does James use it the same way Paul does in, say, Romans?

Justified to me means to be found righteous. I am found righteous in Christ, how about you?

This is a new one. Do you mean that you were born righteous and then, when you "accepted Jesus" this act just displayed what was already there? I don't understand.

I did a very long post on what I believe James was teaching about faith. He used Abraham and Rahab specifically to teach the believers and the unbelievers respectively.
He was encouraging them and instructing in matters of faith yes. So how little faith did it take for Rahab to be justified?

I must have missed it. There are a lot of posts on this thread. I think it took quite a bit of faith for Rahab to be justified. She sided with spies. If she was caught, it wouldn't have been pretty. James uses two quite extreme examples of "works" to prove his point. First, Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son because of his faith ih God's plan. Secondly, Rahab was (probably) risking death by saving the spies.

But his first example, the one he starts his teaching with, was mundane by comparison. It is simply an admonition to not walk by a person in need and not help. This "work", helping the poor, is what "shows righteousness", right? Do you think this is what James is talking about?

 

[Butch5]

Chessman, you're making inferences from passages out of context.

That's certainly possible. However, you might notice that every single passage that I posted above does have the word "salvation" or "saved" within the verse. The topic being Once Saved Always Saved, they seemed pretty much in context to me. With the exception of the Jude reference to the Exodus, they seemed clear enough. Then again, Jude (talking to NT beleivers does say "put in rememberance" this aspect of the Exodus. I think Jude was making a point to them that it was fairly significant event that forsahdowed something that was indeed important for them to remember.

OK, where in this context do any of the passages teach OSAS? When I say context I don't mean we take our understanding of salvation and find verses that speak of Salvation. By context I mean what is the argument that the author is making in his writing. Are any of those authors teaching OSAS?

 

[Butch5]

Chessman, you're making inferences from passages out of context.

That's certainly possible. However, you might notice that every single passage that I posted above does have the word "salvation" or "saved" within the verse. The topic being Once Saved Always Saved, they seemed pretty much in context to me. With the exception of the Jude reference to the Exodus, they seemed clear enough. Then again, Jude (talking to NT beleivers does say "put in rememberance" this aspect of the Exodus. I think Jude was making a point to them that it was fairly significant event that forsahdowed something that was indeed important for them to remember.

OK, where in this context do any of the passages teach OSAS? When I say context I don't mean we take our understanding of salvation and find verses that speak of Salvation. By context I mean what is the argument that the author is making in his writing. Are any of those authors teaching OSAS?

 

[dadof10]

If you define "justified" in James as "shown to be righteous", then OSAS is false. If you define "justified" in James as "made/declared righteous" then sola-fide is false because James is using the word in the same way Paul does. This definition puts righteousness onto the believer on the basis of their works. Gotta get back to work, lunch break over. I'll explain in more detail later.

Now you know why I'm (unofficially) non-OSAS, and, 'shown' to be righteous in regard to 'justified' in James' letter. I'm not hemmed in by OSAS so it's easy for me to see and accept that 'justified' in James' letter means 'to be shown to be righteous' and have no fear of violating a belief that to fall from faith means you were never saved in the first place. OSAS has to take a dive before sola-fida (as we Protestants define that) in how I see it.

It's the only logical way for you to reconcile the two.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

[MENTION=88699]Jethro Bodine[/MENTION]
In all the suffle of this now 400+ post thread, maybe you missed this very important question. Would you mind just quickly listing your top 2 or three passages that teach OSAS=no since you seem to agree that it's not James 2.

Then where are these other Scriptures that you mention? I’m not saying there are not any, just very interested in which ones, exactly, that you meant. It would be a great new Thread to start. (_________) teaches OSAS = no

Here they are again:

"20...you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but tremble. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22 Consider 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. 23 And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again." (Romans 11:20-23 NIV)


"...Christ is faithful as the Son over God’s house. And we are his house, if indeed we hold firmly to our confidence and the hope in which we glory." (Hebrews 3:6 NIV)


"12 See to it, brothers and sisters, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 13 But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called “Today,†so that none of you may be hardened by sin’s deceitfulness. 14 We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end." (Hebrews 3:12-14 NIV)



"22...he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel." (Colossians 1:22-23 NIV)


"1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain." (1 Corinthians 15:1-2 NIV)


It's very clear that salvation is conditional on continuing in the faith you started out with. And why not, that's how we got it in the first place--by our faith. James and others say we can know we are doing that (continuing in our faith and confidence in Christ--the faith that saves) by our obedience.

If it's not possible to continue in the faith we started out with, why does the Bible warn us to stand steadfast in a faith we can not lose?

 

[Deborah13]

Either way, works must accompany saving faith. And you can't be OSAS if you believe that. That's the point.

James is saying that if you don't have faith that is saving faith, then you're not saved, never were saved.

Not that you were saved and lost it.

 

[farouk]

Either way, works must accompany saving faith. And you can't be OSAS if you believe that. That's the point.

James is saying that if you don't have faith that is saving faith, then you're not saved, never were saved.

Not that you were saved and lost it.

Deborah13:

Good point. Peter at the end of his Second Epistle speaks of growing 'in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ'. Of course, for there to be growth, there needs to be life there in the first place.

The trouble is that lots of folk have gone to evangelical events and after a lot of pizza, rock music (l like both!), are deemed to have made some sort of 'decision', along the lines of: 'Oh yeah, I think I agree, yeah, sure thing'. But there has never been a true work of the Spirit in their hearts, bringing about repentance.

And so then other folk notice that there is not any growth evident in their lives, and so they say, Oh, they must try harder to do God's will, or something.

The whole basis is wrong.

For there to be growth, there needs to be life from and true and Biblical experience of the new birth in the first place.

Blessings.

 

[Deborah13]

This is a new one. Do you mean that you were born righteous and then, when you "accepted Jesus" this act just displayed what was already there? I don't understand.

Born righteous, heavens NO. You already know all this.

Romans 5:17-18
King James Version (KJV)
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Romans 4:6-8
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.




Impute in these scriptures = a thing is reckoned as or to be something, i.e. as availing for or equivalent to something, as having the like force and weight

 

[MarkT]

Since I'm on a roll today I'd like to share a view of the complete and utter failure of 'continuing belief' as a STANDARD for a believer being saved.

For this example I'm going to use (scripture of course) ALL the people of Israel who came out of Egypt, saw ALL the mighty works of God in Christ up front, close and personal.

If any persons, such as ALL OF THEM could be believers, they had nearly continually open active proof that God was REAL and ACTIVE in their behalves.

Who couldn't believe after all of that?

Yet what did REALITY show us?

Every last one of them except for 2, Joshua and Caleb, who were over the age of 20, the age considered to be sufficient for participation in battle, died in the desert and did not cross the JORDAN into the promised land WHY?

Because of UNBELIEF.

I find that to be rather entirely incredible, don't you?

???

Jude 1:5
I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

Hebrews 4:6
Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

Hebrews 4:11
Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

In the aforementioned bunch of UNBELIEVERS we also have AARON, THE HIGH PRIEST and MOSES.

Is any serious believer going to say that Moses is not saved or in heaven?

Now, the math here would indicate that there may have been as many as 5 or 600 thousand people up to as many as 2 MILLION people who came out of Egypt in the Exodus.

And exactly 'how many' of them made it into the promised land?

Uh, yeah, 2.

Even after all they saw.

And your chances are what? What?

yeah

do the math.

s

Where do you get the idea Moses was an unbeliever? He did everything as the LORD had commanded.

Hebrews 4:6 says they fell because of disobedience. So does Hebrews 3:18 So does Hebrews 4:11 'Let us strive to enter that rest, that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience.' And Jude 1:5 says he 'afterward destroyed those who did not believe'. Destroyed is the opposite of saved. What happened to the Israelites is a lesson what happens to unbelievers. They are destroyed not saved.