James 2 And OSAS - Part 2

[francisdesales]

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

Anything written by J.N.D. Kelly, such as http://www.amazon.com/Early-Christi...8&qid=1369072124&sr=8-1&keywords=j.n.d.+kelly, is a fine book. He is an Anglican, but pretty fair, I think. He has some books that are at a variety of "levels", some more "scholarly" than others.

Jaroslav Pelikan is another pre-eminent Church historian on doctrines. He was a Lutheran who converted to Greek Orthodoxy. He is more detailed and precise than Kelly. An example: http://www.amazon.com/The-Christian...072379&sr=1-1-spell&keywords=jarislav+pelikan

I enjoyed Pelikan because he thoroughly describes the development of how theologians came to the conclusion on various teachings of the Church.

If you are interested in reading the actual writings from some early Church writings with explanations, this is a simpler book: http://www.amazon.com/Four-Witnesse...72492&sr=1-10&keywords=early+church+doctrines. It is written by a Catholic.

There are a number of such books on history of teachings of the faith, hope this helps. The reviews of these books should help you decide if you want any of them.

Regards

 

[chessman]

[Q
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

That's funny because i don't have a problem with what you say above, except that you say it in a way that implies i don't agree with what you just said. I totally agree with what you just described as OSAS= yes.

I don't personally know any Christian that loves the Lord, that believes in OSAS, that uses this doctrine to live like Hell. I can see the practical basis for arguing against OSAS because of a potential slippery slope to a life filled with sin. But any true Christian has the H. S. and fellow brother/sisters to convict them of their sin.
Ultimately, it's up to them to decide not to sin as much as possible.

A pig's a pig in the end.

 

[francisdesales]

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

That's a red herring. The development of doctrine PRESUMES that there will be some difference of opinions. When we see unanimity, however, can't we presume that doctrine is relatively accepted? Thus, the original point is when we see unanimity on a matter of belief, we have a relatively universally accepted idea throughout the Church. It is universally accepted that Jesus died on the cross. This is noted by the Church Fathers. Does the fact that some people begin to develop WHO Jesus is in reference to the Father and present different thoughts mean that Jesus DID NOT die on the cross???

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.

Could you present some evidence of that, from secondary sources if you must? I do not agree with you on your idea that the Church taught universalism - all men will be saved.

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.

Again, present your evidence, please. I have read the Church Fathers and have no idea who you are refering to on such teachings of "once you are always saved". There is a clear idea from the Fathers, following Scriptures, that a Christian who falls into the ways of wickedness will not enter the Kingdom. There is little said (maybe nothing?) about "that guy was not saved to begin with". Once you were baptized, it was understood that one was saved, redeemed, freed from sin. But it didn't follow that "were saved" was to extend into the distant future without regards to one's life.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

[Q
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

That's funny because i don't have a problem with what you say above, except that you say it in a way that implies i don't agree with what you just said. I totally agree with what you just described as OSAS= yes.

I don't personally know any Christian that loves the Lord, that believes in OSAS, that uses this doctrine to live like Hell. I can see the practical basis for arguing against OSAS because of a potential slippery slope to a life filled with sin. But any true Christian has the H. S. and fellow brother/sisters to convict them of their sin.
Ultimately, it's up to them to decide not to sin as much as possible.

A pig's a pig in the end.

OSAS presumes that one is one of the sheep, the elect, predestined to eternal heaven. There is no objective data to make that statement for an individual. The best we can say is that one is CURRENTLY saved - freed from the slavery of sin and abiding in Christ. The objective data is our obedience to the commandments. Whether this continues into the future, the individual cannot make such a statement.

A Christian is a "true Christian" only as they have faith working in love. Being a "true Christian" today doesn't guarantee that will continue into the future. Why does one find it necessary to make such statements? WHO is going to admit that "yea, I intend on falling away in the future"? Of course, while we are on fire for Christ, we deny that as a possibility. Reality speaks otherwise. Peter thought the same thing - he could NOT deny Christ... He WOULD NOT. But he did.

Remain in Christ. Do what is necessary to remain as such. Beware that one doesn't fall.

Regards

 

[gr8grace]

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

That's a red herring. The development of doctrine PRESUMES that there will be some difference of opinions. When we see unanimity, however, can't we presume that doctrine is relatively accepted? Thus, the original point is when we see unanimity on a matter of belief, we have a relatively universally accepted idea throughout the Church. It is universally accepted that Jesus died on the cross. This is noted by the Church Fathers. Does the fact that some people begin to develop WHO Jesus is in reference to the Father and present different thoughts mean that Jesus DID NOT die on the cross???

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.

Could you present some evidence of that, from secondary sources if you must? I do not agree with you on your idea that the Church taught universalism - all men will be saved.

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.

Again, present your evidence, please. I have read the Church Fathers and have no idea who you are refering to on such teachings of "once you are always saved". There is a clear idea from the Fathers, following Scriptures, that a Christian who falls into the ways of wickedness will not enter the Kingdom. There is little said (maybe nothing?) about "that guy was not saved to begin with". Once you were baptized, it was understood that one was saved, redeemed, freed from sin. But it didn't follow that "were saved" was to extend into the distant future without regards to one's life.

Regards

Once again Francis, I do not believe in perseverance of the saints. I believe in the biblical teaching of eternal security.

Here are just a few of the early church people who taught and knew about people who taught universalism.

We can read that Clement of Alexandria (150ad to 210ad) held to Universalism who was most likely taught by Pantaenus. It was Clement who taught Origen, as most know Origen was a Universalist.

St. Augustine admitted that "very many" believed in Universalism in his day, so obviously it did not originate in his day.

I am simply pointing out that people are claiming that eternal security came around the time of St. Augustine. My point was that a belief in Universalism existed long before St. Augustine, so there were large groups of people who clearly did not believe salvation could be lost. It is not all cut and dry like some would like to claim. It was not that all believed salvation could be lost, but that "many" believed in the salvation of all men.

 

[Butch5]

.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.

OK, then to understand what the church taught we should read the early writings of the church, correct?

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.

Sure it follows, because the Catholics, in this regard taught the same thing that was taught before them. There is 300 years of church history before the Catholic church came into being and they were refuting OSAS then too.

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

I have and in all of the Scriptures I've never see a passage of Scripture that says salvation can't be lost. You see, I don't look at church history to see what the Scriptures mean. I look at church history to see what was first taught and how they understood the Scriptures, then I look at the Scriptures to see if they writers were right.

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.

Let's look at this logically, the Scriptures don't say salvation can't be lost, so why aren't you all over that? You see it's not hard to take a passage and interpret it in such a way so as to support a preconceived idea. That's why it's better to form doctrine based on facts. Since there is no passage of Scripture that states salvation can't be lost, the best case that anyone can attempt to make is one from inference. Now, anyone can draw a logical inference from a set of given facts. However, that doesn't necessitate that the conclusion is correct, even if the facts are true. I'll give you an example.

I look out of the widow and the grass is wet. I see that it is cloudy out and I draw a logical inference, it has rained. That is a logical inference, however, it may or may not be true. I could be that the sprinkler system was activated automatically and watered the grass. So, the inference that it rained, why logical, isn't necessarily true. Once I was given additional information (the sprinkler turning on) I can see that my initial inference may not be the case. The problem is that many Christians reject or overlook this additional information preferring their doctrine to the facts.

 

[chessman]

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)

Yes, Jesus calls Judas out by name. Called him a "friend" yet also the Son of Destruction. I see nothing anti-OSAS in that. But read on just how Jesus kept the others. That is if God answered Jesus' prayer.

12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.

And as far as us other Christians, just read on:

20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one.

Wow! What a prayer! I think Jesus prayed in accordance with God's will.

Also,
Matthew 26:50
Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.†Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him.

Sometimes a "friend" just fits in with our plans.

 

[MarkT]

If you add 'provided they continue in their belief', would that harm OSAS? After all the sheep will continue. They do continue. They will follow. They do follow. Those that do not follow or fall away were never His sheep. I know brethren that God has predestined us for glory. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

 

[Butch5]

Ante-Nicene

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

You're welcome. That is the Ante-Nicene writers they encompass the time from the apostles to about 325 A.D. the Nicene and post Nicene writers go from 325 on. The key to looking at these teachings is to look for uniformity among the writers on a given topic and to also look at the geographical area in which the doctrines were taught. When you find a single doctrine being taught by all or most of the writers over the entire region you can be pretty sure that this was an original teaching. I also give more weight to those writers who were with the apostles and those who they taught. For instance, Ignatius and Polycarp were taught by the apostle John. Clement of Rome was Paul traveling companion and is listed in the Scriptures. Many believe Papias also was a hearer of John. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp and Justin the Martyr, while not taught by the apostles has some very sound and logical arguments in his support of Christianity.

 

[Butch5]

If you add 'provided they continue in their belief', would that harm OSAS? After all the sheep will continue. They do continue. They will follow. They do follow. Those that do not follow or fall away were never His sheep. I know brethren that God has predestined us for glory. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Mark,

That argument isn't logical, if you were never one you cannot fall away from being one.

 

[Butch5]

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)

Yes, Jesus calls Judas out by name. Called him a "friend" yet also the Son of Destruction. I see nothing anti-OSAS in that. But read on just how Jesus kept the others. That is if God answered Jesus' prayer.

12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. 18 As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.

And as far as us other Christians, just read on:

20 “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one.

Wow! What a prayer! I think Jesus prayed in accordance with God's will.

Also,
Matthew 26:50
Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.” Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him.

Sometimes a "friend" just fits in with our plans.

Hi Chessman,

I don't see how any of that applies to OSAS, nothing is said there that no one can be lost.

Secondly, regarding friend, I agree it fits the plan. However, in your post you said if God knows how to choose a friend. It seemed to me that from that you were inplying that if God calls someone friend they will be saved. However, as I pointed out according to Jesus Judas, who was called friend, was not.

 

[smaller]

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.

The scriptures say they did not enter the promised land because of unbelief and died before entering because of same.

You are welcome to continue to disregard that fact of text.

Numbers 20:12
And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.

Jude says the same thing.

Clear enough to me.

s

 

[chessman]

OK, then to understand what the church taught we should read the early writings of the church, correct?

If you want to study the history of the church, sure. Study their writings. I prefer to study the Bible. Once I get that down (I'm still learning it), I'll move on to the early church's teachings. But I doubt very seriously I'll find any unanimity there. Anytime you have two people discussing doctrine you’ll have at least three nuanced opinions. What does that prove? Nothing, “objectivelyâ€. I define “objective truth†as outside any person’s truth (i.e. biblical truth).
This issue here is, what did James think about OSAS. We’ll I know he was murdered by his church for believing Jesus was “LORDâ€. He refused to renounce that belief so he must have felt pretty confident in his eternal life. Although he might very well have said a bad word or two to those that threw him off the roof on his way down. I doubt very seriously he had good thoughts toward them, anyway.

But James’ inspired message is:

James 4:12 There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?
​

 

[chessman]

Let's look at this logically, the Scriptures don't say salvation can't be lost, so why aren't you all over that?

Because you are so wrong about that. They clearly DO say salvation cannot be lost. I could list dozens (and have). But explain this one without anything but the plain meaning for what Jesus was saying:

John 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
And when someone starts to squirm away from what Jesus says here (and dozens of other passages lik it), contort the words as he meant them. I.e. “ah yes, but that passage doesn’t say “a man†cannot throw his eternal life awayâ€. Hogwash. Jesus said, NO MAN. And He meant just that. Not to mention that it’s not the man’s life or eternal life to give away in the first place.
But anyway, when someone starts that nonsense I give a listen to their logic, then if it’s fallacious, I ignore them. Church father or not. Early father or not.

 

[chessman]

It seemed to me that from that you were inplying that if God calls someone friend they will be saved. However, as I pointed out according to Jesus Judas, who was called friend, was not.

I see your point. But I'm not using James' message in James 2 to prove OSAS in the first place. The OP did. If the OP can use "justified" in the middle of a discussion about people not being able to tell (justify) someone's true faith by the clothes they wear, then I can use "friend" to support the other Scriptures that teach OSAS.

Plus, I don't get the clearest message from that verse with the "friend" word as much as I do, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousnessâ€â€”and he was called a friend of God. (James 2:23 ESV)

The “friend†just supplements the “counted to him as righteousness†part.

Very, very similar to how “justified†supplements the “Do you want to be shown†argument that James put’s forth.
It's incorrect to read too much into “justified†in James 2, to build a logical case for how Abraham came in and out of “salvationâ€.
Not to mention that logically speaking it’s called Abraham’s Bosom for a reason. So obviously Abraham is and always will be saved.
It just seems to me, that logically speaking to prove OSAS=no, you'd have to give an example of someone that the Bible says was saved and then went to Hell.

Judas theoretically could be an example as we are told he's headed for Hell. Except, as I read the Bible Judas was never saved to begin with. In fact, because of his unbelief, Jesus turned him totally over to Satan.

Even if Abraham did “backslide†out of salvation (which he didn’t of course), he wound up saved in the end so I don't see the logical case ever could be made using Abraham.

Again, it’s not about Abraham’s abilities orl ack thereof or his pefectly led life; it’s about God’s abilities and His love for those He's given eternal life to.

 

[Butch5]

OK, then to understand what the church taught we should read the early writings of the church, correct?

If you want to study the history of the church, sure. Study their writings. I prefer to study the Bible. Once I get that down (I'm still learning it), I'll move on to the early church's teachings. But I doubt very seriously I'll find any unanimity there. Anytime you have two people discussing doctrine you’ll have at least three nuanced opinions. What does that prove? Nothing, “objectivelyâ€. I define “objective truth†as outside any person’s truth (i.e. biblical truth).
This issue here is, what did James think about OSAS. We’ll I know he was murdered by his church for believing Jesus was “LORDâ€. He refused to renounce that belief so he must have felt pretty confident in his eternal life. Although he might very well have said a bad word or two to those that threw him off the roof on his way down. I doubt very seriously he had good thoughts toward them, anyway.

But James’ inspired message is:

James 4:12 There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?
​

Hi Chessman,

It's good to study the Bible, many do. However, look at what we've been left with having everyone simply study the Bible and drawing their own conclusions. How does a person study the Bible without an understanding of the historical context?

Without looking at what was first taught one runs the risk of learning incorrect things and then having to "un" learn them and learn what is correct. This doctrine is a prefect example. You are arguing for a doctrine that the church didn't teach until recently but has been refuted from the earliest Christians.

Regarding unanimity, wouldn't you expect unanimity among those who were taught by the apostles? If the apostles all taught the same thing wouldn't you expect their students to teach the same thing? I agree as we get further from the source error will enter but we wouldn't simply reject what was first because error later entered the equation, correct? I think you'll be surprised at the unanimity you'll find among the earliest writers. Now, that's not to say you won't find something they may disagree on, however, it's the exception, not the rule.

 

[Butch5]

Let's look at this logically, the Scriptures don't say salvation can't be lost, so why aren't you all over that?

Because you are so wrong about that. They clearly DO say salvation cannot be lost. I could list dozens (and have). But explain this one without anything but the plain meaning for what Jesus was saying:

John 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.
And when someone starts to squirm away from what Jesus says here (and dozens of other passages lik it), contort the words as he meant them. I.e. “ah yes, but that passage doesn’t say “a man” cannot throw his eternal life away”. Hogwash. Jesus said, NO MAN. And He meant just that. Not to mention that it’s not the man’s life or eternal life to give away in the first place.
But anyway, when someone starts that nonsense I give a listen to their logic, then if it’s fallacious, I ignore them. Church father or not. Early father or not.

Hi Chessman,

John 10:28 doesn't prove OSAS. The verbs are in the present tense. Literally, the sheep are hearing and following and Jesus is giving them eternal life. This speaks of what was happening at present. Nothing here indicates that this situation will continue indefinitely. The passage goes on to say that no one can snatch them out of the Father's hand. The context of the passage is the thief or the robber. These are the one's who would attempt to snatch them from the Father's hand. The Greek word translated snatch implies the use of force. There is nothing in this passage that indicates that a person cannot choose to walk away from God.

 

[Butch5]

It seemed to me that from that you were inplying that if God calls someone friend they will be saved. However, as I pointed out according to Jesus Judas, who was called friend, was not.

I see your point. But I'm not using James' message in James 2 to prove OSAS in the first place. The OP did. If the OP can use "justified" in the middle of a discussion about people not being able to tell (justify) someone's true faith by the clothes they wear, then I can use "friend" to support the other Scriptures that teach OSAS.

Plus, I don't get the clearest message from that verse with the "friend" word as much as I do, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. (James 2:23 ESV)

The “friend” just supplements the “counted to him as righteousness” part.

Very, very similar to how “justified” supplements the “Do you want to be shown” argument that James put’s forth.
It's incorrect to read too much into “justified” in James 2, to build a logical case for how Abraham came in and out of “salvation”.
Not to mention that logically speaking it’s called Abraham’s Bosom for a reason. So obviously Abraham is and always will be saved.
It just seems to me, that logically speaking to prove OSAS=no, you'd have to give an example of someone that the Bible says was saved and then went to Hell.

Judas theoretically could be an example as we are told he's headed for Hell. Except, as I read the Bible Judas was never saved to begin with. In fact, because of his unbelief, Jesus turned him totally over to Satan.

Even if Abraham did “backslide” out of salvation (which he didn’t of course), he wound up saved in the end so I don't see the logical case ever could be made using Abraham.

Again, it’s not about Abraham’s abilities orl ack thereof or his pefectly led life; it’s about God’s abilities and His love for those He's given eternal life to.

I guess this was the post you were referring to as I've not used Abraham at all in my NOSAS argument.

 

[chessman]

I guess this was the post you were referring to as I've not used Abraham at all in my NOSAS argument.

Yes. I went back and edited the post to clarify that it's the OP argument that Abraham is an example of someone in and out of salvation, not you.
It seems to me, that you and I agree on James 2's message. however, we disagree that the Bible teaches OSAS elsewhere. Like John 10.

 

[George Muller]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

which would be noted by a life of following the Law of Christ - even if they didn't realize they were, who are we to doubt God's power??? Can a Muslim love his neighbor without alterior motive by his own power? Or is it not the power of God within that leads someone to look to the Lawmaker of the Law of Love? Isn't this just such an example that Paul discusses in Romans 2?

No its not possible for a muslim to be a Christian by accident, and receive the Spirit of God and then keep the royal law of Love. Mans love is not the love of God nor can a man be saved by being nice to other people.
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Ro 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 ¶ And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

What is this, part of this new world religion? universal salvation?: