A Person is Justified by Works and not by Faith Alone

[Nintentacle]

We're only saved by (true) faith, and (good) works is the result of that (true) faith.

The ones who hears, and does not listen, is a fool, according to Jesus (Matthew 7:24-27)

 

[FreeGrace]

I was talking about listening to the holy spirit and you say, "thou hast a devil"?

My point is that even believers can be deceived. Just look at all the contradictory doctrines held by evangelical believers. satan has unfortunately done a good job of deception to divide believers.

And what happens when people stop believing?

They are under God's hand of discipline, and will lose reward and inheritance IN the kingdom. But since God's gift of eternal life is irrevocable, they are still saved. Even though that really bothers a lot of God's children.

The osas doctrine says they keep their salvation no matter what; it can never be lost for any reason.

The Bible says so. Rom 6:23 and Rom 11:29. Irrevocable.

You casually dismiss the connection between faith (or belief) and obedience by claiming it's about trust.

I did because faith IS about truth, not about obedience. Obedience is about love, which I proved from Scripture.

But that's just more legalistic technicality jargon; what's the difference between trust and faith?[/QUOT4E]
My point is that they are the same.

Those who trust God should show their faith through their actions.

Yes, that was James' point.

If they do not show their actions, they do not show their trust, or belief.

No, they are not showing their love. Obedience comes from love, not from faith.

1 Jn 5:3 - For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.

The phrase "love of God" means "love for God". iow, if we love God, we will keep His commandments. Meaning, we will be obedient to His commands.

 

[john darling]

They are under God's hand of discipline, and will lose reward and inheritance IN the kingdom. But since God's gift of eternal life is irrevocable, they are still saved. Even though that really bothers a lot of God's children.

The bottom line of what you're suggesting here is that people can completely and totally turn away from God, they can ignore him, they can disregard him, they can be proud, arrogant, lazy, greedy and just generally opposite to what God wants, and all that will happen is that they will "lose reward and inheritance IN the Kingdom".

But when it comes to salvation, God has no choice but to give these people eternal life because he locked himself into a contractual agreement where they can behave however they want and still bully him into obeying the contract. You put a nice shiny coat of paint over all this with your proof texts, but this is the basic situation you are describing under all the glitter and gloss. Poor God. Why does he get himself into these kind of messes!

The Bible says so. Rom 6:23 and Rom 11:29. Irrevocable.

Rom 11:29 doesn't say anything about salvation and Rom 6 doesn't say anything about irrevocable salvation. It talks about how the gift of God is eternal life. You're only imagining it has something to do with being able to reject God and still demand eternal life, again, because it's convenient. How wonderful to be able to disregard obedience and discipline while still claiming eternal life.

No, they are not showing their love. Obedience comes from love, not from faith.

Legalistic nitpicking. You disregarded the evidence linking obedience and belief.

Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

1 Peter 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

Jn 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Jn 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Works and belief. Belief and works. You can't separate the two. If you believe, you will act. If you do not act, it shows you do not believe. Yes, God has said that he is willing to offer eternal life, but that eternal life comes with obligations. We must follow the values of Heaven. We must obey the will of God. That's the price. If we choose to no longer follow the values of Heaven; if we choose to disregard what God wants, then God will disregard what we want, too.

Look again at what James said:

JAS 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

JAS 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

He starts with belief, and then moves in to a "but" statement where he's suddenly talking about faith and works.

Belief is pointless without being qualified through works. The devils believe in God, but the devils do not obey God, therefor their belief is useless. That is the distinction James is making here.

He talks about belief, faith and works in a way which clearly shows an intimate link between all three. If you don't have even one of these, then the other two are questionable. He calls it vanity when people refuse to acknowledge this.

That's what I see as the fruit of the osas doctrine. Vanity. Men believing they can hold God to a contract, pushing him around with arguments about his promises and what he owes them while arguing they will not doubt their own understanding. They will not consider the possibility that they've misunderstood something along the way. In the vanity of their own minds they've understood God to the point that they can unashamedly boast about how not even God can take away from them what they know to be rightfully theirs. Vanity. James had it so right.

 

[FreeGrace]

The bottom line of what you're suggesting here is that people can completely and totally turn away from God, they can ignore him, they can disregard him, they can be proud, arrogant, lazy, greedy and just generally opposite to what God wants, and all that will happen is that they will "lose reward and inheritance IN the Kingdom".

So, your view is "all that will happen is…". Apparently you are not impressed with God's plan. I guess I can't help you.

But when it comes to salvation, God has no choice but to give these people eternal life because he locked himself into a contractual agreement where they can behave however they want and still bully him into obeying the contract.

It doesn't matter how you prefer to phrase it. God gives the gift of eternal life to those who believe, and when they believe. And His gifts are irrevocable.

How can you hold to your view when God's gifts are irrevocable? Seems you're arguing against a brick wall.

You put a nice shiny coat of paint over all this with your proof texts, but this is the basic situation you are describing under all the glitter and gloss. Poor God. Why does he get himself into these kind of messes!

OK, I get it. You're offended by God's plan. But it isn't God who is "poor", imho. It's those who don't like His plan.

God's gifts are irrevocable. Doesn't that mean anything to you?

Rom 11:29 doesn't say anything about salvation and Rom 6 doesn't say anything about irrevocable salvation.

That's an interesting opinion. Rom 6:23 specifically says that eternal life is a gift. And eternal life and salvation are basically the same thing. Those who have eternal life are saved, and those who are saved have eternal life. And both are received by faith in Christ. You cannot separate them, as you seem to be trying to do.

btw, Eph 2:8 also says that salvation is a gift. Written by the same guy who wrote Rom 6:23 and 11:29.

It talks about how the gift of God is eternal life.

There. You said it yourself. And Rom 11:29 SAYS that God's gifts are irrevocable.

You're only imagining it has something to do with being able to reject God and still demand eternal life, again, because it's convenient.

I'm not imagining anything, nor am I demanding anything. Eternal life is a gift, which you've acknowledged. But it seems you reject Rom 11:29 which says that God's gifts are irrevocable.

How wonderful to be able to disregard obedience and discipline while still claiming eternal life.

How awful that one would reject God's plan for believers.

You disregarded the evidence linking obedience and belief.

No one provided any link or evidence between obedience and belief. I, otoh, provided evidence that obedience is linked to love for God. 1 Jn 5:3.

Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

1 Peter 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

Jn 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Jn 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

None of these verses teach that faith will result in works.

Works and belief. Belief and works. You can't separate the two. If you believe, you will act. If you do not act, it shows you do not believe.

So far, none of the verses you've provided support your opinion. In fact, the point of James 2 was that believers are supposed to demonstrate their faith to others or they will be hypocrites.

Yes, God has said that he is willing to offer eternal life, but that eternal life comes with obligations.

Another huge assumption. Where is the evidence of your opinion here?

The only obligation is on the part of God, who PROMISES eternal life to those who believe.

We must follow the values of Heaven. We must obey the will of God. That's the price.

I see. You ascribe to a works-salvation theology. I don't find that anywhere in Scripture.

I offer 2 passages that refute your opinion:
Rom 4:4,5
4Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,

Eph 2:8,9
8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it (salvation) is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

If we choose to no longer follow the values of Heaven; if we choose to disregard what God wants, then God will disregard what we want, too.

What God will deny those who do so are blessings in time and reward in eternity. If that's no big deal for you, so be it.

Belief is pointless without being qualified through works.

Sure. From the perspective of others. God doesn't need to see works to justify the believer. We know from many verses that our justification from God's perspective is based on our faith, not our works. Rom 5:1 is just one of many verses.

The devils believe in God, but the devils do not obey God, therefor their belief is useless. That is the distinction James is making here.

Belief that "God is One" is monotheism. That belief has NEVER been saving faith. So your point is irrelevant.

All Jews believe that God is One. Yet, that hasn't saved any Jew. They MUST put their faith in the Messiah, Jesus Christ for eternal life.

He talks about belief, faith and works in a way which clearly shows an intimate link between all three.

They are linked, but just not in the way you seem to think. Faith doesn't cause works in any way. Believers are commanded to perform works. If it was automatic, there wouldn't be any need for the commands.

That's what I see as the fruit of the osas doctrine. Vanity. Men believing they can hold God to a contract, pushing him around with arguments about his promises and what he owes them while arguing they will not doubt their own understanding.

I'm amused by your wording. Man can't "hold God to a contract". But God holds Himself obligated to His own promises.

Or, do you take the position that God can break His own promises?

What your side may have not considered is that if eternal life can be lost, then it can't be called "eternal". Yet, it is called eternal, and it is a gift, and God's gifts are irrevocable.

Your side cannot provide any verse about eternal life being taken away, which is your view. Scripture refutes that view with Rom 6:23 and 11:29.

 

[john darling]

JN 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

JN 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

I realize this verse doesn't specifically use the words "eternal life", though I think the context shows that it relates. Jesus said something very similar in another place:

JN 14:23 If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

The significance here are the "if" statements. If we continue is Jesus' words we will be set free. If we keep Jesus' words, we will show that we love him and God will "make his abode with him". Of course, the "if" indicates that there is a choice in the matter. People may, or may not, choose to "continue in Jesus words" or "keep Jesus' words". They may even do a bit of both. At one time they may choose to continue in Jesus words and later choose not to continue in Jesus' words. That's what "if" means; it's a conditional statement.

It makes no sense that God will continue to "make his abode" with people who may have kept Jesus' words at one time, but then decided NOT to keep his words later. The way freegrace describes it, Heaven will be sectioned off into two groups, one group who gets rewards because they obeyed God, and another group which has no rewards because they did not obey God (though eternal life is the ultimate reward so the "no rewards" thing makes no sense anyway).

According to Jesus, the people who refused to obey him (i.e. continue in his word) will not have a home with Jesus and yet somehow, according to freegrace's "once saved always saved" theory, they still get eternal life. So, the osas doctrine presents us with a situation with people who refuse to obey Jesus hanging around for eternity. It makes no sense.

LK 9:62 And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.

It is possible for a person to show faith, but later turn away from that faith and Jesus says those kind of people are not fit for the Kingdom of God. God does not owe anything to anyone, but he does offer grace to those who show they want it. Obviously, someone "looking back" shows by their actions that they don't want God's gift anymore and so God withdraws the offer. It will be like that until the day we die; there will always be a chance that we may choose to turn away. God never made any promise to indulge and reward stubborn people who refuse to obey and eternal life is the greatest reward possible.

It's not a matter of breaking promises but rather us humans presuming we know better than God about his own promises. That's the vanity thing; people decide for themselves what they think God has promised them, usually based on what they want to hear and they have no shame about holding God to what they think he owes them.

 

[FreeGrace]

It's not a matter of breaking promises but rather us humans presuming we know better than God about his own promises. That's the vanity thing; people decide for themselves what they think God has promised them, usually based on what they want to hear and they have no shame about holding God to what they think he owes them.

It seems you don't believe that God's promises are very clearly communicated. I believe what Scripture says.

Eternal life is a gift. Rom 6:23
Justification is a gift. Rom 5:16
Salvation is a gift. Eph 2:8
God's gifts are irrevocable. Rom 11:29

What isn't so clear about these verses?

 

[john darling]

Hi free. I agree that salvation is a gift. That was never an issue. I've addressed the verses you keep posting. Can you address the counter argument I just gave? See, my arguments are not inconsistent with what those verses actually say, but they are in consistent with your interpretation of those verses.

For example, you argue that salvation is a free gift. That was never the issue. The issue was about God being able to say, "hey, you've abused grace and decided to turn away from me. Even though my grace was available to you before, as a free gift, I'm now withdrawing that offer based on your disregard for the teachings of my son whom I told you to listen to and obey".

Your interpretation is that God cannot say such a thing, ever. The mere fact that he even offered grace is seen by you as an irrevocable promise with no conditions or circumstances whatsoever. Of course there are circumstances and conditions, but you brush those away with the convenient "we're not saved by works" doctrine, thus making Jesus' commands of no effect.
With your doctrine, all one need do is claim the free gift and then nothing they ever do in their life, no matter how contrary to God's will can prevent them from taking what they claimed from God.

None of the verses you presented communicate that doctrine. It may be that you yourself don't understand what your doctrine actually means in real terms and that's why you can't seem to see just how ridiculous it is to claim that God cannot do what he wants with his own salvation just because you've made some kind of claim about promises he apparently made.

He never made any promise to guarantee eternal life to those who turn away from him. That promise only exists in your mind. You think you have scriptural evidence for it but those verses don't say what you claim they say. For example, the Rom 6 verse says the gift of God is eternal life. There is no promise or guarantee in this verse. It's simply stating what the free gift is, but in your mind you've created a guarantee completely independent of the condition Jesus gave, "if you continue in my words" and if anyone questions you on it, you just keep repeating the verse over and over again as though simply quoting a verse is evidence of being right.

Anyway, I look forward to reading your response to the post I made just before this one, with those references I gave to support my position.

 

[FreeGrace]

Hi free. I agree that salvation is a gift. That was never an issue.

Since God's gifts are irrevocable, I believe it is the issue.

I've addressed the verses you keep posting. Can you address the counter argument I just gave? See, my arguments are not inconsistent with what those verses actually say, but they are in consistent with your interpretation of those verses.

How does one interpret God's gifts are irrevocable? The language is direct and straight forward. The verse needs no intepretation.

Regarding your counter-argument, how can there be one given the Biblical fact that God's gifts are irrevocable, and eternal life is one of His gifts?

For example, you argue that salvation is a free gift. That was never the issue. The issue was about God being able to say, "hey, you've abused grace and decided to turn away from me. Even though my grace was available to you before, as a free gift, I'm now withdrawing that offer based on your disregard for the teachings of my son whom I told you to listen to and obey".

Since God's gifts are irrevocable, God cannot do that. Or He simply can't be trusted in what He says. He has said that His gifts are irrevocable. Or do you think Paul overstepped his bounds and said something that God never said?

Your interpretation is that God cannot say such a thing, ever.

I have no interpretation. I simply believe what Rom 11:29 says. And it says that God's gifts are irrevocable, which refutes all so-called "counter-arguments". iow, there isn't any counter-argument. There can't be.

The mere fact that he even offered grace is seen by you as an irrevocable promise with no conditions or circumstances whatsoever.

The only condition for receiving eternal life is faith in Christ. And many verses have "believe" in the aorist tense, which disproves the idea that one's faith must continue in order for salvation to continue. One example is Acts 16:31.

Of course there are circumstances and conditions, but you brush those away with the convenient "we're not saved by works" doctrine, thus making Jesus' commands of no effect.

Jesus never taught that one is saved by works, or what they DO. His whole point was about what one believed.

With your doctrine, all one need do is claim the free gift and then nothing they ever do in their life, no matter how contrary to God's will can prevent them from taking what they claimed from God.

Maybe you don't believe that God doesn't have to keep His word. I happen to believe that He always keeps His word. For example, He has promised ethnic Jews many things, which will happen at a future time. Even though Satan has tried as hard as he could, he will not be able to wipe out Jews.

None of the verses you presented communicate that doctrine.

Now, that is amazing. Truly amazing.

Rom 5:16 and 6:23 say that justification and eternal life are gifts. Eph 2:8 says thal salvation is a gift. All these gifts are from God. And Rom 11:29 says that God's gifts are irrevocable.

iow, He doesn't go back on His promise.

It may be that you yourself don't understand what your doctrine actually means in real terms and that's why you can't seem to see just how ridiculous it is to claim that God cannot do what he wants with his own salvation just because you've made some kind of claim about promises he apparently made.

God IS doing what He wants. He gives an irrevocable gift called eternal life/salvation/justification to those who have believed in Christ. I really can't imagine why you think God doesn't have to keep His promises. That would go directly against His perfect character.

He never made any promise to guarantee eternal life to those who turn away from him.

I'm beginning to think you don't know what "irrevocable" means.

That promise only exists in your mind.

Check out Rom11:29. It's in the Bible. It's your view that exists only outside of the Bible.

You think you have scriptural evidence for it but those verses don't say what you claim they say. For example, the Rom 6 verse says the gift of God is eternal life. There is no promise or guarantee in this verse.

Rom 11:29 doesn't occur in a vacuum. It says clearly that God's gifts, of which eternal life is one of them, are irrevocable. It couldn't be any more clear.

It's simply stating what the free gift is, but in your mind you've created a guarantee completely independent of the condition Jesus gave, "if you continue in my words" and if anyone questions you on it, you just keep repeating the verse over and over again as though simply quoting a verse is evidence of being right.

I would ask you to examine the context in which Jesus said "if you continue in my words". You will find that there was no mention of salvation.

If there were, Jesus would be in direct contradiction to Paul's words in Romans.

Anyway, I look forward to reading your response to the post I made just before this one, with those references I gave to support my position.

Since eternal life is a gift, and God's gifts are irrevocable, there isn't any counter-argument against that. Not from Scripture, at least.

 

[FreeGrace]

JN 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

JN 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

I realize this verse doesn't specifically use the words "eternal life", though I think the context shows that it relates. Jesus said something very similar in another place:

JN 14:23 If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

The significance here are the "if" statements. If we continue is Jesus' words we will be set free.

Being set free doesn't refer to eternal life, as you suppose. It refers to being free from deception, false doctrine, etc. Remember, Jesus is THE truth. All else is false. If we continue in Jesus' words, we will be free of all that is false.

If we keep Jesus' words, we will show that we love him and God will "make his abode with him".

Nothing here about eternal life. The subject here is fellowship. Same principle as found in 1 Jn 1.

Of course, the "if" indicates that there is a choice in the matter. People may, or may not, choose to "continue in Jesus words" or "keep Jesus' words". They may even do a bit of both. At one time they may choose to continue in Jesus words and later choose not to continue in Jesus' words. That's what "if" means; it's a conditional statement.

I agree. But it's not about eternal life. what God gives is irrevocable.

It makes no sense that God will continue to "make his abode" with people who may have kept Jesus' words at one time, but then decided NOT to keep his words later.

And He doesn't. Fellowship is broken when one of His children wander away. 1 Jn 1 is about fellowship.

The way freegrace describes it, Heaven will be sectioned off into two groups, one group who gets rewards because they obeyed God, and another group which has no rewards because they did not obey God (though eternal life is the ultimate reward so the "no rewards" thing makes no sense anyway).

Just what the Bible teaches. What do you think rewards are all about anyway?

According to Jesus, the people who refused to obey him (i.e. continue in his word) will not have a home with Jesus and yet somehow, according to freegrace's "once saved always saved" theory, they still get eternal life.

Since eternal life is one of God's irrevocable gifts, Jesus wasn't talking about eternal life, but about fellowship. We read of the same principle in Jn 15 and the phrase "abide with Me".

So, the osas doctrine presents us with a situation with people who refuse to obey Jesus hanging around for eternity. It makes no sense.

I think the Bible makes perfect sense. But somehow eternal security offends your sensibilities. But God's plan is all about grace. We earn nothing. we deserve nothing. But god showers us with grace just the same.

It is possible for a person to show faith, but later turn away from that faith and Jesus says those kind of people are not fit for the Kingdom of God.

I'd love to see a verse that supports this. Certainly those believers who do that aren't fit for Christian service. But that doesn't equate to loss of salvation.

God does not owe anything to anyone, but he does offer grace to those who show they want it.

With respect, you are dead wrong here. God owes what He promises. God promises eternal life when one believes. It can't be called "eternal" if it isn't secure and eternal. Your view reduces eternal life to "conditional life". Where is that in Scripture?

Obviously, someone "looking back" shows by their actions that they don't want God's gift anymore and so God withdraws the offer.

You've got zero support for that from Scripture. God's gifts and calling are irrevocable. He does NOT withdraw His offers, or gifts. Or calling.

It will be like that until the day we die; there will always be a chance that we may choose to turn away. God never made any promise to indulge and reward stubborn people who refuse to obey and eternal life is the greatest reward possible.

God's gifts are irrevocable. Your opinion is not found in Scripture.

It's not a matter of breaking promises but rather us humans presuming we know better than God about his own promises.

This makes no sense. God has clearly communicated His promises in His Word. Seems you just don't like what He has promised and that His gifts are irrevocable.

That's the vanity thing; people decide for themselves what they think God has promised them, usually based on what they want to hear and they have no shame about holding God to what they think he owes them.

Seems to me that your camp has decided for themselves what you think God has promised. Amazing.

God's gift of eternal life is irrevocable. That is irrefutable.

 

[john darling]

Ok well I feel you're breaking the terms of this section of the forum by repeating the same argument over and over again and ignoring new evidence. For example, I gave a teaching from Jesus about how no person who puts his hand to the plow and turns back is fit for the kingdom. You simply pretend that verse doesn't exist by responding with,

I'd love to see a verse that supports this. Certainly those believers who do that aren't fit for Christian service. But that doesn't equate to loss of salvation.

I did show you a verse, but you ignored it. You did this with the connection between believe and obedience, and you're doing it again with this verse about turning away from the plough. Since you're not playing by the rules of this area of the forum there's not much point in continuing. I wonder that we're probably the only two who even read this thread anymore, so meh.

 

[FreeGrace]

Ok well I feel you're breaking the terms of this section of the forum by repeating the same argument over and over again and ignoring new evidence. For example, I gave a teaching from Jesus about how no person who puts his hand to the plow and turns back is fit for the kingdom. You simply pretend that verse doesn't exist by responding with,


I did show you a verse, but you ignored it.

I did not. I said this: "I'd love to see a verse that supports this. Certainly those believers who do that aren't fit for Christian service. But that doesn't equate to loss of salvation."

I agreed that such a believer isn't fit for service in the kingdom. Jesus never taught salvation by works.

 

[JLB]

The bottom line of what you're suggesting here is that people can completely and totally turn away from God, they can ignore him, they can disregard him, they can be proud, arrogant, lazy, greedy and just generally opposite to what God wants, and all that will happen is that they will "lose reward and inheritance IN the Kingdom".

But when it comes to salvation, God has no choice but to give these people eternal life because he locked himself into a contractual agreement where they can behave however they want and still bully him into obeying the contract. You put a nice shiny coat of paint over all this with your proof texts, but this is the basic situation you are describing under all the glitter and gloss. Poor God. Why does he get himself into these kind of messes!



Rom 11:29 doesn't say anything about salvation and Rom 6 doesn't say anything about irrevocable salvation. It talks about how the gift of God is eternal life. You're only imagining it has something to do with being able to reject God and still demand eternal life, again, because it's convenient. How wonderful to be able to disregard obedience and discipline while still claiming eternal life.



Legalistic nitpicking. You disregarded the evidence linking obedience and belief.

Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

1 Peter 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

Jn 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Jn 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Works and belief. Belief and works. You can't separate the two. If you believe, you will act. If you do not act, it shows you do not believe. Yes, God has said that he is willing to offer eternal life, but that eternal life comes with obligations. We must follow the values of Heaven. We must obey the will of God. That's the price. If we choose to no longer follow the values of Heaven; if we choose to disregard what God wants, then God will disregard what we want, too.

Look again at what James said:



He starts with belief, and then moves in to a "but" statement where he's suddenly talking about faith and works.

Belief is pointless without being qualified through works. The devils believe in God, but the devils do not obey God, therefor their belief is useless. That is the distinction James is making here.

He talks about belief, faith and works in a way which clearly shows an intimate link between all three. If you don't have even one of these, then the other two are questionable. He calls it vanity when people refuse to acknowledge this.

That's what I see as the fruit of the osas doctrine. Vanity. Men believing they can hold God to a contract, pushing him around with arguments about his promises and what he owes them while arguing they will not doubt their own understanding. They will not consider the possibility that they've misunderstood something along the way. In the vanity of their own minds they've understood God to the point that they can unashamedly boast about how not even God can take away from them what they know to be rightfully theirs. Vanity. James had it so right.

Yes Brother! Agreed.

OSAS is no where to be found in the bible.

JLB

 

[john darling]

Yes Brother! Agreed.

OSAS is no where to be found in the bible.

JLB

*hi-5's JLB*

LK 14:28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?

LK 14:29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,

LK 14:30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

LK 14:31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?

LK 14:32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.

Count the cost. If you decide to follow and then later decide to turn back then you forfeit your gift.

 

[FreeGrace]

Yes Brother! Agreed.

OSAS is no where to be found in the bible. JLB

In the recently closed thread onn 1 Thess 5:4-10, in post #77, you said this:
"And, btw, God's gifts are irrevocable."

That came from Rom 11:29. Why don't you connect the ONE dot from Rom 6:23 which says that the gift of God is eternal life and realize that eternal life is irrevocable?

You believe that God's gifts are irrevocable, and in the same epistle Paul noted that both justification (5:16) and eternal life (6:23) are gifts. Yet you won't accept that eternal life is irrevocable.

I just don't get your view.

 

[FreeGrace]

Count the cost. If you decide to follow and then later decide to turn back then you forfeit your gift.

Can you provide an explanation of why one should think that "counting the cost" is for salvation? If there's a cost to salvation, then it ain't free, and it ain't by grace, is it.

The whole cost was paid by Jesus Christ, on the cross. When one places their faith in Him for eternal life, they are saved. Counting the cost refers to being a faithful follower, not to getting saved.

 

[john darling]

If there's a cost to salvation, then it ain't free, and it ain't by grace, is it.

Sure, salvation and grace are free, but God only knows who's willing to accept these gifts by how they behave. Obviously someone who believes they don't need grace is not accepting the gift, no matter how free it is.

This idea that God has no expectations or standards just isn't Biblical at all. It's a convenient doctrine to claim that God has no expectations for who he rewards with eternal life. If he didn't have some way of discerning who should have it and who should not, then God would be like a foolish person offering to spend eternity with people who will spend that eternity constantly disagreeing and arguing with him. God is not a foolish person.

 

[FreeGrace]

Sure, salvation and grace are free, but God only knows who's willing to accept these gifts by how they behave.

Of course God knows. But what does that to do with it? He gives the gift to those who believe.

Obviously someone who believes they don't need grace is not accepting the gift, no matter how free it is.

And such a one doesn't believe God's promise either.

This idea that God has no expectations or standards just isn't Biblical at all.

What do you mean? Of course God has no expectations, because He is perfectly omniscient and already knows all things. But what do you mean by "standards". For what, specifically? We know from Scripture what His "standards" are for saving people: they must believe in Christ. 1 Cor 1:21

It's a convenient doctrine to claim that God has no expectations for who he rewards with eternal life.

I don't believe eternal life is a reward. It's a gift, which is quite different in concept than a reward. Gifts are not earned, but rewards are. And salvation is not earned. Rom 4:4,5, and Eph 2:8,9.

If he didn't have some way of discerning who should have it and who should not, then God would be like a foolish person offering to spend eternity with people who will spend that eternity constantly disagreeing and arguing with him. God is not a foolish person.

This sounds an awful lot like you don't either believer or understand what omniscience is or means.

God doesn't have to "discern" because He already knows.

God knows who will believe, and when they believe, He saves them, by regenerating them and giving them eternal life.

 

[john darling]

I think, even without a list of Bible verses, God also gave us common sense. Lets say you have a hotdog shop that offers to give you a life time supply of hotdogs, totally free, so long as you agree to only eat at that one hot dog place. You "repent" from all other hot dog places.

But then, a few years down the line, you start going to other hot dog places. Not only that, but you talk to others about how they should also try this other hot dog place, about how wonderful it and tasty it is.

The original hotdog owner sees you doing this. What will he do? He may try to talk to you about it. He may try to remind you about how you agreed to repent of those other hot dog places before he gave you the lifetime supply of hot dogs.

But what happens when you refuse to listen. You keep going to his place for free the free hot dogs (mmm yum! how convenient) while telling everyone else about how great the other hot dogs are and going to eat those others hot dogs with them.

Eventually the owner will cancel your lifetime supply of hot dogs, since he has no obligation to continue feeding you when you yourself do not appreciate his generosity and your own agreement to repent from those other hotdogs. It's obvious.

MT 21:33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

MT 21:34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.

MT 21:35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.

MT 21:36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.

MT 21:37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.

MT 21:38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.

MT 21:39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

MT 21:40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

MT 21:41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

MT 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

MT 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

 

[FreeGrace]

I think, even without a list of Bible verses, God also gave us common sense.

I don't think it wise to put human "common sense" at the same level as God's Word. As we all know, common sense ain't all that common. ;)

Lets say you have a hotdog shop that offers to give you a life time supply of hotdogs, totally free, so long as you agree to only eat at that one hot dog place. You "repent" from all other hot dog places.

But then, a few years down the line, you start going to other hot dog places. Not only that, but you talk to others about how they should also try this other hot dog place, about how wonderful it and tasty it is.

The original hotdog owner sees you doing this. What will he do? He may try to talk to you about it. He may try to remind you about how you agreed to repent of those other hot dog places before he gave you the lifetime supply of hot dogs.

But what happens when you refuse to listen. You keep going to his place for free the free hot dogs (mmm yum! how convenient) while telling everyone else about how great the other hot dogs are and going to eat those others hot dogs with them.

Eventually the owner will cancel your lifetime supply of hot dogs, since he has no obligation to continue feeding you when you yourself do not appreciate his generosity and your own agreement to repent from those other hotdogs. It's obvious.[/QUOTE]
So this somehow represents how God thinks and acts towards humans?? I don't think so.

MT 21:33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

MT 21:34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.

MT 21:35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.

MT 21:36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.

MT 21:37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.

MT 21:38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.

MT 21:39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

MT 21:40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?

MT 21:41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.

MT 21:42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

MT 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

All parables must be understood in light of clear teaching in God's Word. Jesus never taught parables as a direct source of doctrine. In fact, He used parables because so many people were negative to Him and His ministry. So He used parables to fulfill Isa 6:9,10. Eyes that don't see, and ears that don't hear.
He wasn't teaching doctrine when He used parables. Even His own disciples were stumped by them.

No parable trumps whatever else is found in Scripture. They are subordinate to what is taught in Scripture.

Jesus Himself was clear about how to receive eternal life: to believe in Him. When He mentioned works, it was in reference to obedience, not to obtaining salvation.

 

[john darling]

Jesus never taught parables as a direct source of doctrine. In fact, He used parables because so many people were negative to Him and His ministry.

Have a look at verses 41-43 of the scripture I posted, just after the parable. Jesus gives some explanation about the lesson of the parable. He asks the people what God will do to the kind of "wicked husbandmen" he described in the story. They answered that God will destroy them, take the vinyard away from them and give it to others who are willing to bring forth the fruits of it.

In verse 42 he responds to this answer by talking about his teachings, the "cornerstone". This is the same stone referenced in the parable about building on the rock in Mt 7:24-27. Jesus related this rock to his teachings by comparing it to the wise man who heard his teachings and obeyed. Through his obedience (to the teachings he heard) he built his house on a rock.

He says the "builders" would reject this stone. That's pretty much what happens when the commands of Jesus come up and people argue that we are not saved by works. The "we're not saved by works" doctrine amounts to nothing more than a convenient way of disregarding Jesus' teachings. Anytime a difficult teaching comes up it's "we're not saved by works" and the teaching can then be legitimately ignored with a soothed conscience.

In verse 43 Jesus follows on from this rejection of the stone of his teachings by illustrating a consequence. The kingdom will be taken away from those who reject his teachings and given to others who bring forth the fruit (i.e. act on his teachings).

It will be taken away from them because they were unfruitful.

Taken away...

(haha I couldn't resist doing a JLB thing there)