James 2 And OSAS - Part 2

[dadof10]

James 2 And OSAS

Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, 23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2)

I usually don't start threads, but I have been looking for some feedback on this topic on a couple of other threads, to no avail.

That the word "justified" in these verses means "shown to be righteous", is a common interpretation among OSAS proponents. The way it has been explained to me is, when a person HAS "saving faith" he WILL do "good works" to "show" or prove or demonstrate or any other verb you want to use, his "true faith". What he does, doesn't actually save him, but only demonstrates what KIND of faith the person has.

There are two points I want to touch on if you hold this interpretation of James and hold OSAS.

1) It is possible to outwardly prove to others that you are really, truly saved.
2) Once it has been satisfactorily shown that the person HAS "saving faith", he can NEVER backslide, or OSAS is false.

The standard OSAS line for people who revert back to their previous lives after conversion is "he was never really saved in the first place". The above interpretation of James 2 really destroys this argument because "never really saved..." assumes we CAN'T know, and this interpretation of James says we can.

I don't think a person "showing" their "saving faith" is rare at all. All "born-again Christians" I have ever run across have shown their love for Jesus by CONSTANTLY (nauseatingly so, to some) speaking His Name, reading Scripture, helping at homeless shelters (as in James 2:15-16), volunteering within the community, refraining from sin, changing their "evil ways", etc. Most (all?) newly born-again Christians perform most of these "works" and thus, "show" their "saving faith".

It is also not rare for some who show this faith, to revert back to their previous lives. Some people take years, others months, but there are those who perform all the "works" I listed above (and then some) then, after a certain amount time has past, revert to apathy, or worse, atheism.

To put it another way, most of the backsliders who "saved" Christians would consider "never really saved...", have, in the past, "showed" or PROVED they really were saved and simply lost this salvation.

I would just like to get some thoughts from those who hold this interpretation of James and OSAS. How can you reconcile a "shown to be righteous" interpretation of James 2 and the fact that some of the people who do show it, backslide?

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]52120[/split] by dadof10 Titled James 2 And OSAS

 

[christian_disable]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]52120[/split]

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

One of the most obvious frailties in promoting the eternal damnation of fallen believers is by using any measure of SIN.

Each of us has the responsibility to soberly assess if our sin is the result of unbelief, and not just the growing pains of growing up into Christ.

We are all factual sinners down to the last one of us. This much is obvious.

But for any one of us, whose sin is the result of outright unbelief? That is what is not so obvious, not that unbelief will keep you out of the kingdom. That's why we have to take the Bible's warnings to heart about shrinking down into unbelief. It's not a sin to show others that the Bible warns us of the eternal dangers of unbelief. (I can't believe I'm explaining this to a professing believer).

Can a believer be again blinded by the devil? Uh, yeah, every time we sin, sin is in fact 'of the devil.' Is it really a matter of 'how bad' from that point of fact?

It's a matter of if your sin is the result of casting the forgiveness of God aside. How does the grace of God cover the rejection of God's grace of being able to believe? Faith itself is God's grace to overcome the damnation of unbelief. But some surely do reject that. And worse, still expect to be saved on the Day of Wrath.

Belief in itself, however fleeting, even momentary, is a miracle. Some flowers appear for a very short period of time and then they are gone, just like the grass.

But Paul says you have to have the 'flower' of belief to the end in order to saved:

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


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

Why believers seek to eternally destroy such is a sign of their own internal blindness.

IF sin is the measure, then Paul dragged himself down to the lowest point he could find in terming himself of sinners, "I am chief." An after salvation statement.

So who is lower than that?

Show me where Paul went back to the sin of not believing in Christ. Then show me he still had the surety of his salvation after doing that. I have more respect for a OSAS argument that acknowledges that faith will endure to the end for the believer. I have no respect for a OSAS argument that says not even faith itself will determine if you will be saved on the Day of Wrath...you're saved regardless. That's what I don't see in the scriptures.

Sin can not be the measure of damnation for a believer.

Okay, then James is a liar? We can not test ourselves by measuring the faith that saves by what it does? Is that what you're saying (in complete and utter contradiction to Jesus, James, and John.)?

 

[dadof10]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]52120[/split]

Is there a reason why? Was it getting too long?

The reason I'm asking is it's going to be kinda hard to respond to people on the other thread. All the cutting and pasting while dealing with the quotes and formatting all...

 

[George Muller]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

Each of us has the responsibility to soberly assess if our sin is the result of unbelief, and not just the growing pains of growing up into Christ.

I agree with judging ones own sin, but God has not granted the right to any Christain to "unsave" another, by any standard.


Jas 4:11 ¶ Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.
12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

 

[smaller]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

Each of us has the responsibility to soberly assess if our sin is the result of unbelief, and not just the growing pains of growing up into Christ.

Paul set the lowest mark possible in this matter for himself. If he as an Apostle described himself as the chief of sinners post salvation how much chief'er can anyone else really get?

The MARK of Paul was that regardless of that low mark, God in Christ came into this world to save SINNERS.

And thank GOD for that!

Yes, I will be in line for that salvation because I AM one too.

But for any one of us, whose sin is the result of outright unbelief?

I don't know why you'd even bother putting up 'sin' as the supposed measure of believers losing their salvation.

Exactly ZERO of us are sinless. And yes, UNbelief is a SIN as well. A person can believe and later fall into UNbelief, a SIN.

This does not mean God in Christ will not save them.

That is what is not so obvious, not that unbelief will keep you out of the kingdom.

It will in the present. Eternally however, not. The Savior will SAVE and is entirely capable of doing so.

That's why we have to take the Bible's warnings to heart about shrinking down into unbelief.

Well, it's somewhat odd that any believer would consider believing the Savior can not save as 'belief' quite frankly. And to go on to seek their own eternal torture is even more bizarre isn't it?

It's not a sin to show others that the Bible warns us of the eternal dangers of unbelief. (I can't believe I'm explaining this to a professing believer).

Unbelief in WHAT? Some people here are raising the standard that we must believe the Savior can NOT SAVE in order to be SAVED.

How weird is that?

It's a matter of if your sin is the result of casting the forgiveness of God aside.

Sin can not enter the question of salvation for a believer. None of us are sinless. Unbelief is a sin as well.

If the standard is SIN then we are all quite frankly on our way out and into the Lake, period, if the basis is SIN.

How does the grace of God cover the rejection of God's grace of being able to believe?

God can make any man see. God also 'creates' blindness:

John 9:39
And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

For the record I am an openly admitted blindman. Those receive the PROMISE OF SIGHT.

and also for the record, Paul also saw only in part and as through darkness. I can go to partly sighted as an option...;)

Faith itself is God's grace to overcome the damnation of unbelief. But some surely do reject that. And worse, still expect to be saved on the Day of Wrath.

As stated prior, IF any of you want to judge a fallen believer on the basis of current unbelief then you are judging that person for SIN and the ah, glaringly open fact is that 'all of us' are and will remain sinners til the day we die. Unbelief is just another sin on the list of all of them.

But Paul says you have to have the 'flower' of belief to the end in order to saved:

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

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

Well, that brings us to 'point 2' in these matters.

IF you are raising the standard of 'belief,' however fleeting it may be, what 'constitutes proof?'

Why believers seek to eternally destroy such is a sign of their own internal blindness.

IF sin is the measure, then Paul dragged himself down to the lowest point he could find in terming himself of sinners, "I am chief." An after salvation statement.

Show me where Paul went back to the sin of not believing in Christ. Then show me he still had the surety of his salvation after doing that. I have more respect for a OSAS argument that acknowledges that faith will endure to the end for the believer. I have no respect for a OSAS argument that says not even faith itself will determine if you will be saved on the Day of Wrath...you're saved regardless. That's what I don't see in the scriptures. [/quote]

I'm going to hit this one more time. Paul didn't have to 'fall in unbelief.' He set the mark for himself as the chief of sinners. Is unbelief any worse than the chief of sinners? Unbelief is a sin too.

Paul put that mark down there for DIVINE PURPOSES so that others can not come along and say I AM A BETTER SINNER than any other guy.

Sin can not be the measure of damnation for a believer.

Okay, then James is a liar? We can not test ourselves by measuring the faith that saves by what it does? Is that what you're saying (in complete and utter contradiction to Jesus, James, and John.)?

That's why I said earlier to some here, put up your marks showing proof of who believes. What 'constitutes' that proof?

s

 

[dadof10]

For a non-believer to come on a "Christian" forum and attempt to insult the faith of others, seems very odd to me?

It's even odder when you have believers who come to pounce on other believers saying God in Christ can not and will not save believers.

That is one of the most bizarre matters I've witnessed in christiandom.

Yet it's everywhere where fear is spread.

s

They always seem to have a "list" of some sins that "others" do? But they and their group can find an excuse for their sins?

Indeed. That is 'a hallmark' of such sects. They 'insert fear' and then they 'sell a way out.'

Keeps the bread on the priest's tables.

Law and grace are a deadly mix?

They are meant to be a toxic brew. Against all sin and evil. IN this way they are both PERFECTLY ALIGNED.

and as you know I have no issues with Law in this way. and find it just as strange that 'believers' aren't of the same mind.

For it is the law that stirs up the sin in these people,

Uh, yeah, because it is THERE within to STIR. Avoiding the Law will not avoid that factual confrontation.

The Law is Spiritual. It can not be 'avoided.' It is ever in contentions with the powers of evil regardless of our facing the facts or not.

and then they use grace as an excuse to cover their ungodly behavior,while they seek to condemn others.

Yeah, well, hypocrisy is a very old game in religions.

Gotta say Christianity is one of the best.

s

The offer still stands, Smaller. If you would like to discuss the virtues of Catholicism on the One-On-One Debate forum, away from the security of the Moderators, instead of just throwing thinly veiled rocks at my "sect", just let me know. I'm your huckleberry.

 

[smaller]

Well I guess we disagree on the solution?

You keep saying that but I really don't think any of us as Christians would disagree that the Law is against sin and evil and that we are against sin and evil as well. I really don't know why you'd disagree with that.

Where we seem to fall off the agreement cart is where you think that Grace made us sinless, and that never happened.

s

 

[dadof10]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]52120[/split]

Ok. I figured it out. The "Draft this post" button works well.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]52120[/split]

Is there a reason why? Was it getting too long?

The reason I'm asking is it's going to be kinda hard to respond to people on the other thread. All the cutting and pasting while dealing with the quotes and formatting all...

I open two (or more) instances of the thread I'm in to easily accommodate jumping back and forth with copied quotes.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

But Paul says you have to have the 'flower' of belief to the end in order to saved:

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

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

Well, that brings us to 'point 2' in these matters.

IF you are raising the standard of 'belief,' however fleeting it may be, what 'constitutes proof?'

I tell you what. Since you are asking this question directly of the scriptures I quoted, you answer your own question first. Then I'll share my answer, okay?

So, tell us, smaller, "what constitutes the proof of believing that the two scriptures I posted talks about?".

 

[WIP]

:naughty Can we please stay on the topic of the thready. Just yesterday someone pointed out how surprising it was that this thread made it to over 400 posts. Quite honestly, I don't understand why that should be surprising at all since we are all Christians.

 

[smaller]

[...]

I asked DadO and anyone else who does not adhere to the OSAS position if their 'POSITION' entails that we must believe that we might not be saved in order to be saved.

I hope [all] understand this is positional and has zero to do with personal commentary.

s

 

[George Muller]

Well I guess we disagree on the solution?

You keep saying that but I really don't think any of us as Christians would disagree that the Law is against sin and evil and that we are against sin and evil as well. I really don't know why you'd disagree with that.

Where we seem to fall off the agreement cart is where you think that Grace made us sinless, and that never happened.

s

Well I guess I will stay with Gods word.

Im not going to post the scriptures, but you know I have the ability

Lets take a fast on the issue today, "between you and me" Lets challenge these folks on their assumed right to condemn and judge others salvation.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

On topic:

Where is OSAS in James' letter?

Since I suggest it's NOT there (but perhaps suggested in other places), it's easy to dispose of that doctrine in favor of sola fida in James' letter...the point of this thread.

Perhaps dadof10's goal was to try to focus on the sola fida part, but I'm the odd ball in the Protestant camp that isn't on board with OSAS, so I put the focus there. And, truthfully, perhaps our differences about sola fida aren't as serious as we at first thought.

 

[smaller]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

But Paul says you have to have the 'flower' of belief to the end in order to saved:

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

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

Well, that brings us to 'point 2' in these matters.

IF you are raising the standard of 'belief,' however fleeting it may be, what 'constitutes proof?'

I tell you what. Since you are asking this question directly of the scriptures I quoted, you answer your own question first. Then I'll share my answer, okay?

So, tell us, smaller, "what constitutes the proof of believing that the two scriptures I posted talks about?".

There are numerous measures in the New Testament that tells us 'who is a believer.'

Here is one of many examples:

Acts 10:35
But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

The above man is the forerunner of Gods showing of Gentile faith. He was neither Jew nor did he know Christ.

Yet he feared God, did righteous works and was therefore accepted by God.

Here is another favorite of mine. I call this the 'cup of water' salvation:

Mark 9:41
For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.

You want to save people? Go ask them to give you a cup of water. They shall not lose their reward.

As you can see my threshold level is quite easy to reach.

s

 

[dadof10]

One of my messages was deleted WIP, and if you think this questions is not appropriate, please say why?

I asked DadO and anyone else who does not adhere to the OSAS position if their 'POSITION' entails that we must believe that we might not be saved in order to be saved.

I hope you understand this is positional and has zero to do with personal commentary.

s

No.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Jethro Bodine]

One of my messages was deleted WIP, and if you think this questions is not appropriate, please say why?

I asked DadO and anyone else who does not adhere to the OSAS position if their 'POSITION' entails that we must believe that we might not be saved in order to be saved.

I hope you understand this is positional and has zero to do with personal commentary.

s

I can't even remember what I said in my deleted post, lol. But I hope it's okay to say 'your doctrine' and that not mean the person themselves. I've tried very hard to do that.

 

[smaller]

Well I guess we disagree on the solution?

You keep saying that but I really don't think any of us as Christians would disagree that the Law is against sin and evil and that we are against sin and evil as well. I really don't know why you'd disagree with that.

Where we seem to fall off the agreement cart is where you think that Grace made us sinless, and that never happened.

s

Well I guess I will stay with Gods word.

Im not going to post the scriptures, but you know I have the ability

Lets take a fast on the issue today, "between you and me" Lets challenge these folks on their assumed right to condemn and judge others salvation.

If there is one thing to remember with you and I George, it is that though I may be very harsh in my judgments of sin and evil, I would never use that to the detriment of a believers salvation.

So it's nothing personal. You and I agree fairly easily on this topic.

s

 

[smaller]

One of my messages was deleted WIP, and if you think this questions is not appropriate, please say why?

I asked DadO and anyone else who does not adhere to the OSAS position if their 'POSITION' entails that we must believe that we might not be saved in order to be saved.

I hope you understand this is positional and has zero to do with personal commentary.

s

I can't even remember what I said in my deleted post, lol. But I hope it's okay to say 'your doctrine' and that not mean the person themselves. I've tried very hard to do that.

yeah, I know. I need to start emphasizing the fact that they are 'positional' observations.

So, regarding this one JB, does your position[!] entail having to believe that we might be lost in order to be saved?

In some sects this is actually a requirement if you can believe that!

s