James 2 And OSAS - Part 2

[Jethro Bodine]

I was adressing the issue of those who attempt to put a standard upon others, that they do not keep themselves.

You were arguing with the standard.

How does my hypocrisy, if I had any, somehow negate the standard, or make it impossible to impose the standard the Bible sets?

OSAS says that standard doesn't really exist, that ultimately faith without works really can save, or worse, no faith or works at all can save. OSAS vehemently denies James' teaching that dead faith can't save when pressed on the issue. And as a response non-OSAS gets attacked for being judgmental for defending James' setting of the standard for proof of salvation, and somehow hypocrisy makes it so we can't say there is a standard.

Where does James ever say," dead faith in Christ can't save?" (one has to force James into saying this specific false interpretation)

It's so clear I wonder how people can question it. It's so clear that James asks his question in the form of a rhetorical question.

My wife, who has struggled with the faith all our adult lives, get's completely flustered by people who use the 'that's not really what it means' argument to explain away plain words (I'm pressed for time, I can't think of a politer way to say that, so don't be offended). Basically, we add to the frustration of seeking the real truth when we use that argument.

I learned from that, so I don't form my doctrine that way anymore. I take what something says at face value and then weigh it against the rest of scripture, and unless there is an easily understandable and compelling scripture to make us genuinely see that a scripture really doesn't mean exactly what it says, I go with the plain words of scripture. It does damage to the truth and those struggling with it to not do this.

2 Tim 2:11-13 Paul uses His Favorite Hymn to show us 4 First class conditional clauses about faith in Christ.

11~~FAITHFUL . . . {IS} THE WORD/DOCTRINE.
"For you see . . .
if we have died with Him {Christ} - and we have -
at the same time also, we shall also live with Him, 12~~

if we endure suffering -and we do {in the SuperGrace Life}-
we shall also rule with Him {a SuperGrace reward in
Eternity Future},

if we repudiate/deny/refuse Him -and we {some of us} do
{reversionism - rejecting bible teaching} - that same One
{Jesus} also will refuse/deny us {rewards in eternity
future}, 13~~

if we {believers in carnality} are unfaithful/believe not {to/in
bible doctrine} - and we {some of us} do - He abides/
remains faithful {where the title of the hymn is taken}."......the "corpse" of the Faith James is talking about. Useless in Gods plan for your Life. But HE IS FAITHFUL.

For you see, He {Jesus} can not deny Himself
{we are in Union with Christ and are part of Him}.

The fundamental argument against this is this:

The case of the Galatians shows that you can alienate yourself from Christ. The one who abandons his faith in the blood of Christ (through a false 'other' gospel) is not in union with Christ anymore that Christ would be violating his oath of dedication to the members of his own body in disowning them.

You can't take faith out of salvation and still think you have salvation. That's completely and totally contrary to the gospel message. Paul plainly told the Galatians that they had to have faith in the blood of Christ or else they were alienating themselves from the effect of that blood. And James and others say you can tell who has this faith that saves, by what fruit characterize them...and in increasing measure.

This fragment of a hymn references many doctrines: Retroactive Positional truth, Current Positional Truth, Suffering in the SuperGrace life, Ruling with Christ in Eternity Future, Reversionism, loss of SuperGrace rewards in time and eternity for Reversionists, and the doctrine of Eternal Security.

...uh...you lost me...

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

I personally don't see how Paul would say what he did about Abraham's unwavering faith if Abraham had been wavering anywhere along the line (i.e. Hagar).

Well, Paul wasn't there and he had the scriptures as we do plus Abraham was a Hebrew hero. But all the same his faith was greater than his lack of faith. He was a faith warrior when compared to most anyone.
And then too, God threw Abraham's sin as far as the east is from the west. I guess if God doesn't impute it to him, Paul shouldn't either.

Just my opinion, but you know what they say about opinions--they're like belly buttons...some of them probably should stay covered up. (I'm thinking 'outies').

LOL

Do you agree that Abraham had not been told through whom he would have a son that would make sleeping with Hagar somehow a sin of disobedience and lack of faith?

Like I say, people in the church don't warm up to this very well for some reason.

 

[Deborah13]

doesn't appear in church history until the 1500's

What are you reading as church history? I would like to read it too? Thanks

 

[Deborah13]

It's so clear I wonder how people can question it. It's so clear that James asks his question in the form of a rhetorical question.

You can't take faith out of salvation and still think you have salvation. That's completely and totally contrary to the gospel message. Paul plainly told the Galatians that they had to have faith in the blood of Christ or else they were alienating themselves from the effect of that blood. And James and others say you can tell who has this faith that saves, by what fruit characterize them...and in increasing measure.

Well, my point is, how much faith did it take for Rahab? Just enough to get her saved, is my answer.

 

[Deborah13]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

I personally don't see how Paul would say what he did about Abraham's unwavering faith if Abraham had been wavering anywhere along the line (i.e. Hagar).

Well, Paul wasn't there and he had the scriptures as we do plus Abraham was a Hebrew hero. But all the same his faith was greater than his lack of faith. He was a faith warrior when compared to most anyone.
And then too, God threw Abraham's sin as far as the east is from the west. I guess if God doesn't impute it to him, Paul shouldn't either.

Just my opinion, but you know what they say about opinions--they're like belly buttons...some of them probably should stay covered up. (I'm thinking 'outies').

LOL

Do you agree that Abraham had not been told through whom he would have a son that would make sleeping with Hagar somehow a sin of disobedience and lack of faith?

Like I say, people in the church don't warm up to this very well for some reason.

Seeing Hagar wasn't his wife don't you think he should have asked God about that first?

 

[farouk]

I'm really interest to hear how those holding the teaching of OSAS address the fact that the doctrine doesn't appear in church history until the 1500's. It really doesn't matter what passage you quote or how you interpret it, the fact remains that it just isn't there? What say you?

B:

The whole point is that the promises of Scripture were there way before 1500 or whatever other arbitrary date.

 

[farouk]

It's so clear I wonder how people can question it. It's so clear that James asks his question in the form of a rhetorical question.

You can't take faith out of salvation and still think you have salvation. That's completely and totally contrary to the gospel message. Paul plainly told the Galatians that they had to have faith in the blood of Christ or else they were alienating themselves from the effect of that blood. And James and others say you can tell who has this faith that saves, by what fruit characterize them...and in increasing measure.

Well, my point is, how much faith did it take for Rahab? Just enough to get her saved, is my answer.

Deborah13:

It's a recurring theme in Hebrews 11, right? and Rahab is included.

Blessings.

 

[Butch5]

I'm really interest to hear how those holding the teaching of OSAS address the fact that the doctrine doesn't appear in church history until the 1500's. It really doesn't matter what passage you quote or how you interpret it, the fact remains that it just isn't there? What say you?

B:

The whole point is that the promises of Scripture were there way before 1500 or whatever other arbitrary date.

Yes, they were, and the church didn't teach OSAS for the first 1500 years. This should be a very strong indicator that those who are reading OSAS in the Scriptures are reading them wrong. This coupled with the fact that don't see this doctrine in the church until after the Reformers started their own churches speaks volumes about what was "Once delivered to the saints." It wasn't OSAS.

 

[MarkT]

The issue is once saved always saved not who will be saved.

You and I seem to have some difficulty communicating.

The observation put in play is that 'if a person has once believed' and falls away in UNbelief, scriptures show those people are still saved and also shows unbelievers and enemies of the Gospel saved.

Do you understand this is what was communicated through those prior written examples?

Unbelief is a sin? First time I heard that one.

Ah, yes, it is. Unfortunately many people who post at theology sites are not all that familiar with the texts.

s

You're only hearing what you want to hear.

Jude says they were destroyed. You say they were saved. Jude does not name Moses or Aaron. No need to go there. You go there anyway.

Moses was a servant of God, but not perfect. He did not fall into unbelief as you suggest. In fact he led the people into the wilderness as the LORD commanded him. No OSAS

If anything the Scripture shows us the severity of God. No OSAS

Moses failed to sanctify the LORD in the eyes of the people. The LORD said, 'because you did not believe in me' The connotation is Moses lacked confidence. Moses was punished on account of the people. The people rebelled. Moses wrote, 'And the LORD heard your words and was angered' 'The LORD was angry with me also on your account.' Deut. 1:34 and 37 No OSAS

The people were destroyed in the wilderness for their unbelief. No OSAS

The Bible does not say Moses was saved or unsaved. No OSAS. Besides, you are not Moses.

 

[Deborah13]

It's so clear I wonder how people can question it. It's so clear that James asks his question in the form of a rhetorical question.

You can't take faith out of salvation and still think you have salvation. That's completely and totally contrary to the gospel message. Paul plainly told the Galatians that they had to have faith in the blood of Christ or else they were alienating themselves from the effect of that blood. And James and others say you can tell who has this faith that saves, by what fruit characterize them...and in increasing measure.

Well, my point is, how much faith did it take for Rahab? Just enough to get her saved, is my answer.

Deborah13:

It's a recurring theme in Hebrews 11, right? and Rahab is included.

Blessings.

Hebrews 11
11 And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction,
2 for in this were the elders testified of;

John 16:8-10
8 and having come, He will convict the world concerning sin, and concerning righteousness, and concerning judgment;
9 concerning sin indeed, because they do not believe in me;
10 and concerning righteousness, because unto my Father I go away, and no more do ye behold me;
11 and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world hath been judged.

Through His grace to us through the workings of the Holy Spirit we are convicted (convinced) and through faith, in the Gospel of our Lord, His saving grace. I believe it was the same for those in the OT.

 

[Butch5]

doesn't appear in church history until the 1500's

What are you reading as church history? I would like to read it too? Thanks

Hi Deborah13,

If you are interested in the history of the church there are many writings available. The best way is to read the writings of those who were actually there as opposed to a modern condensation of the works. The biggest source would be the church Fathers, Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post Nicene. Personally, I adhere more to the Ante-Nicene writings because they are closer to the source. The further you get from the source the more polluted things become. However you don't find them supporting OSAS, you find them refuting OSAS.

 

[gr8grace]

Where does James ever say," dead faith in Christ can't save?" (one has to force James into saying this specific false interpretation)

You must be joking.

"What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?"

What do you think the answer to this question is, yes or no?

Absolutely, positively NO dadof10. The faith in this verse is "if a man" not "if a Brother" says he has faith. The faith in Question does not have CHRIST as the object.

And the example James gives to prove that he’s not talking about a Christian brother’s type of faith is that even the Demons believe God is one, yet they are damned not saved.

Then James says this so called “destroyer verse†in the form of a rhetorical question that supposedly proves OSAS wrong:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? (James 2:21 ESV)
​

And then James answers the question with a verse that ironically shows us why/how OSAS is in fact true:

and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it [believed God] was counted to him as righteousnessâ€â€”and he was called a friend of God. (James 2:23 ESV)
​

One must only believe that God knows how to pick a friend to see that OSAS makes sense biblically. OSAS is about God’s strength and power and persistence to His will, not about man’s abilities (initially or later).

Amen

 

[francisdesales]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

God is not bound to the sacrament, and can bring into the Kingdom ANYONE whom GOD sees as fit. Even if they never heard of the name Jesus Christ.

I actually agree with you on this point. However, it's an argument for OSAS, not against it. To tie this point back to James 2: Abrams' upbringing and culture (father, brothers, uncles, etc.) was way more Pagan or even Satanic than Judaism or Christianity. Yet, God brought Abram into His friendship. Changed his name to Abraham, made covenants and promises to him, told him his future, gave him the offspring to fulfill those promises (despite Abram’s efforts with another “wifeâ€), etc. OSAS simply states that God kept him there, warts and all.

So if God can "bring into the Kingdom ANYONE whom GOD sees as fit" does it not at least make a little sense that He could keep that person in the Kingdom? Not to mention the Scriptures that state that He does just that very thing.

The only problem with your OSAS analysis is the KNOWLEDGE of who is OSAS. God knows whom He will breath His Spirit upon and secure them at the end. This is so because He is eternal and sees the future as well as the present.

WE will have to await to hear the word "well done, good and faithful servant, enter into my rest"...

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I'm really interest to hear how those holding the teaching of OSAS address the fact that the doctrine doesn't appear in church history until the 1500's. It really doesn't matter what passage you quote or how you interpret it, the fact remains that it just isn't there? What say you?

Correct, a hundred posts or so, I said the same thing, but apparently, that has little meaning to some people. The people who heard Paul preach with their own ears apparently were clueless on a fundamental teaching of Christianity and taught the complete opposite :

Regards

 

[Butch5]

Absolutely, positively NO dadof10. The faith in this verse is "if a man" not "if a Brother" says he has faith. The faith in Question does not have CHRIST as the object.

And the example James gives to prove that he’s not talking about a Christian brother’s type of faith is that even the Demons believe God is one, yet they are damned not saved.

Then James says this so called “destroyer verse” in the form of a rhetorical question that supposedly proves OSAS wrong:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? (James 2:21 ESV)
​

And then James answers the question with a verse that ironically shows us why/how OSAS is in fact true:

and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it [believed God] was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. (James 2:23 ESV)
​

One must only believe that God knows how to pick a friend to see that OSAS makes sense biblically. OSAS is about God’s strength and power and persistence to His will, not about man’s abilities (initially or later).

Amen

Jesus also quoted this about God's friend Judas,

9 Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me. (Psa 41:9 KJV)

 

[Butch5]

I'm really interest to hear how those holding the teaching of OSAS address the fact that the doctrine doesn't appear in church history until the 1500's. It really doesn't matter what passage you quote or how you interpret it, the fact remains that it just isn't there? What say you?

Correct, a hundred posts or so, I said the same thing, but apparently, that has little meaning to some people. The people who heard Paul preach with their own ears apparently were clueless on a fundamental teaching of Christianity and taught the complete opposite :

Regards

I agree. My point is that many simply argue their point from their understanding of the Scriptures rather than lining up their understanding of the Scriptures with facts. No matter what passage one quotes nor how they interpret it doesn't negate the fact that the doctrine doesn't appear until recently in church history. Anyone who ignores this fact is not addressing the evidence against their position. That is why these threads go on page after page. If everyone would address the facts and form doctrine on facts rather than inferences these thread could be resolved quickly for the most part.

 

[francisdesales]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

The Scriptures do not make statements of condemnation for the ignorant, George. Only for those who willfully REJECT the name of Christ.

Many 'sincere believers' reject the false notions of Christ including the insistence that some other partial sighted 'sect' has thee only version available on the planet earth.

That notion is the greatest disservice to Christianity there is.

s

Not really, the Apostles thought the same thing...

 

[gr8grace]

doesn't appear in church history until the 1500's

What are you reading as church history? I would like to read it too? Thanks

Hi Deborah13,

If you are interested in the history of the church there are many writings available. The best way is to read the writings of those who were actually there as opposed to a modern condensation of the works. The biggest source would be the church Fathers, Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post Nicene. Personally, I adhere more to the Ante-Nicene writings because they are closer to the source. The further you get from the source the more polluted things become. However you don't find them supporting OSAS, you find them refuting OSAS.

Do you hold to all of the Anti-Nicine teachings? Did the Ante-Nicene Fathers ever contradict each other and scripture at times?

The majority of the early church held to the belief of universalism ,You will not find universalism condemned as heresy until after the 3rd century.

If the majority of the Early Church held to universalism, what do you think their position of eternal security would be?

Just the fact that the early church did not use the terms "eternal security" or "once saved always saved" did not mean they didnt believe it.

 

[Deborah13]

Ante-Nicene

Thanks Butch, I found them on this site,
http://www.biblestudytools.com/history/early-church-fathers/ante-nicene/

 

[chessman]

.1.The further you get from the source the more polluted things become. 2.However you don't find them supporting OSAS, you find them refuting OSAS.

1. This first sentence argument supports reading the English translations of the original Scripture, not later centuries' opinions of it. I totally agree with it.

2. But the second sentence doesn't follow the logic of the first. It is true that most Catholic early writings were refuting it (OSAS) in Latin to a crowd of people that couldn't even read latin, much less Greek. Many of those refuting OSAS made a nice financial living off those that came (come) and pay for their continuing need to refresh their eternal life each week.

3. Read the Scriptures plain message, not what anyone tells you it says.

4. If the Scriptures said you could lose your gift of eternal life, no problem. I'd be all over it. But it does not and just look at how someone has to stretch James' message in Chapter 2 to keep OSAS=no within a gleamer of hope.