James 2 And OSAS - Part 2

[George Muller]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

George, there is no name other than Christ through whom we can be saved...

Are you saying that Christ cannot send His Spirit to whom He desires to enable that person to love as Christ? Since no one can do good without Christ, we posit that the Muslim, Jew, or anyone else who follows the Law of Christ does so BECAUSE of JESUS CHRIST and His Holy Spirit.

I am certainly not saying that the Muslim has found another way to God. I am saying that the Muslim COULD be saved THROUGH Christ and His Spirit, Who blows where HE wills, not where we THINK He blows.

Regards

Well then they would not be a muslim, they would be a christian, right?

That's a good question, George.

If you had such a neighbor, would you feel comfortable considering them a Christian? I think we could. They would consider themselves Muslim and pray to Allah. They would be wrong on a number of there ideas about who God is and not taking the final step on who Jesus is. Perhaps we could evangelize such people carefully. But at the end of the day, is knowledge or love more important?

Regards

Well they could not be a "Christian" unless they where born-again of Gods Word and Spirit. In that they would need to have confessed Christ as Lord. You seem to want to make both things true, but this is not possible. If I had a neighbor who claimed to be a Christian and prayed to allah, I would warn that man not to play games with God.
Its not a matter of mans goodness nor mans ability to love other men. All men are sinners and cannot be saved except they be born-again.

Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

 

[George Muller]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

George, there is no name other than Christ through whom we can be saved...

Are you saying that Christ cannot send His Spirit to whom He desires to enable that person to love as Christ? Since no one can do good without Christ, we posit that the Muslim, Jew, or anyone else who follows the Law of Christ does so BECAUSE of JESUS CHRIST and His Holy Spirit.

I am certainly not saying that the Muslim has found another way to God. I am saying that the Muslim COULD be saved THROUGH Christ and His Spirit, Who blows where HE wills, not where we THINK He blows.

Regards

14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts..." (Romans 2:14-15 NIV)

Same God, same requirements...just not personified in the person of Jesus Christ because of lack of knowledge about Christ...God himself having revealed himself through nature and conscience to the multitudes in earth's history who have not heard of the Law, or the name of Christ. God's grace extends much, much further than our little corner of history can grasp.

Well first an unsaved man, does not have the "law written upon his heart" Paul is speaking to Jews about the gentile Christians who show the work of the law written upon their hearts "THE HOLY SPIRIT" The law makes clear that the heart of all men is evil and wicked "deceptive above all things" Its good to look at the context of that chapter to see the point Paul is making to the Jews who are trusting in their own goodness to work righteousness.

Ro 2:23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
24 For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.
25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

I think in Romans 2, Paul is stating that having the law doesn't necessarily lead to eternal life - as those without the written Law are fulfilling it by their actions through the Spirit of God. This was the gist of my first post ont his subject. In other words, Paul is telling the Jews that salvation is not dependent upon being a Jew - God is a God of the Gentiles, too.

Regards

One would have to ignore a whole lot of these scriptures to come to that conclusion?

 

[George Muller]

Without the action of turning him over to Satan, his spirit would have been lost. That is the point you seem to ignore.


JLB

So Satan saved his soul?

The plain and clear interpretation is if That man did not repent, Satan would have had his turn to destroy his flesh and take him physically out. But the mans soul was Gods.

Once this person is turned over to Satan, he can expect a terrible death. But, this man did not lose his salvation (once saved always saved). This is the mature believer's understanding and absolute confidence in the doctrine of everlasting salvation. You did nothing to earn salvation. You can do nothing to lose it once you have believed. That is the "Grace of God!"

The purpose that Paul was seeking for this person who was a believer was that his spirit would not be lost due to his unrepentant sin.

It would better for this man to suffer the destruction of his flesh so that his eternal soul would be saved.

If OSAS were true, then no action at all would need to be taken.

The fact that this action was to be taken, shows us that they trusted God and believed His word, and feared for this man's eternal life.


JLB

Well is salvation just about a ticket to heaven? No! And Paul never makes the point you are trying to make, thats your own mind trying to make the scriptures match your own opinion.

1Co 5:6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
7 ¶ Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9 ¶ I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

2Co 2:4 For out of much affliction and anguish of heart I wrote unto you with many tears; not that ye should be grieved, but that ye might know the love which I have more abundantly unto you.
5 ¶ But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part: that I may not overcharge you all.
6 Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many.
7 So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.
8 Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him.
9 For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things.

Paul was not "unsaving" this man, but was bringing order to the church. As a witness not only to them but also to us.
Yes those who walk in the lust of their flesh, will reap what they sow, destruction of the flesh. But at no time did Paul "unsave" this man.

 

[Deborah13]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

OK, in Abraham's case, why was he justified AGAIN in Gen. 15, when he was already justified in Gen. 12?

Righteousness is not always the righteousness that justifies for salvation, as that righteousness can only be Christ that is imputed to us. But God recognized Abraham faith as a being righteous. I think if you check it out there was quite along time, many years, between when this happened and Abraham offering up Isaac. There was 30-31 years between the time Abram was first called the friend of God, I think he was 75 maybe and Isaac was born when he was 100?
I think there were many years where Abram was going through the sanctification process to get him to a place that he could have such a stedfast faith in God to do what he did with Isaac, truly a level of perfection of faith that few of us could a attain in so short a span of time. Would you say so?

 

[Deborah13]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

Yeah, maybe your right, if King David had died, hmm....he did die wonder if he made it to heaven. Premeditated murder and adultery and then he repented of coarse, but he didn't give up Bathsheba, was he still living in sin when he died? Oh no of coarse not her husband was dead!

That's exactly what I tried to point out in the part one of this thread. However, someone said he sinned but did not turn away from God. I thought the two go together.

David did sin terrible sin but David didn't reject God from his heart, he loved God. God said "David was a man after His own heart."
We are fragile creature prone to sin in the flesh but God looks on the heart and the heart cannot lie to God. He's sees us for who we are inside. We need to examine ourselves and make sure that on the inside we are who we proclaim to be.

 

[chessman]

Ok. You said you wanted to "start here". Will you be continuing?

Yes. If you want me to explain how someone that holds to the doctrine of OSAS and what James is saying in James 2, sure.
You asked for feedback on your take of James 2 as compared to an OSAS take so I thought I’d give you mine.
I started at verse 14 since that is the only verse in James 2 that had the word “saved†in it. Being your OP topic Title is “James 2 and OSAS [once saved always saved], I thought it a logical place to start.
But I understand that you have specifically (at least in the OP) only used verses 20-24 to make your “case†that you feel “destroys†OSAS.
I didn’t see the verse that said “Abraham was saved, then went to the grave un-savedâ€. That would be a verse of Scripture, if it existed, that “destroyed†OSAS.
I just first wanted to make sure that you at least agreed to look at all of Chapter 2 in context and do it biblically, not dogmatically. Not a very good start since you don’t even agree that with the one simple verse 14’s Greek by not accepting the article that’s in the text. It’s there for some reason. It cannot be “generic†faith else, there’d be no article there at all (definite or not). Nor would the verse that repeat James truth statement later on in the chapter.
Can you explain how you get your point # 2 from the text, for example? “Once it has been satisfactorily shown that the person HAS "saving faith†relative to “showing†a saved faith thru the wearing of fine clothes? James’ clear point there is that man cannot tell anyone’s inner faith by the outwardly appearance of their clothes.

I don’t see how you get your arguments from the text of James 2:20-24. Your point 2 seems like more of a dogmatic statement than an argument from Scripture. (and I’ve read your OP several times giving it due consideration). The only text that talks about Abraham seems extremely consistent with OSAS to me.

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

Then the LORD said to Abram, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. (Genesis 15:13 ESV)

As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. (Genesis 15:15 ESV)
​

One only has to understand that God is faithful to see that God meant Abram’s righteousness (salvation) to be permanent. Changing his name to Abraham in the process. Did that mean Abraham didn’t ever sin again? Of course not. Call that “backsliding†if you want. It’s called “sliding†for a reason. It’s not “back-destruction†or “back-death†or “back to being un-savedâ€.

Romans 3:3 What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God?

1 Corinthians 1:9 God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

1 Corinthians 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.
​

James’ comparison in chapter 2 goes perfectly with OSAS (Once Saved always Saved) or (Once sinner always sinner).

As compared to your “case†from this passage (James 2:20-24), I like the Biblical explanation of God’s friendship and certainty for Abraham’s future (yet at times backslidden life).

When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly.†(Genesis 17:1-2 ESV)
​

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.

You've not made a Biblical case for your point #2. and there's biblical evidence against your assertion.

Paul was saved, yet still the “chief among sinnersâ€, for just on example.

I actually agree with your point #1. But I don’t see how that “destroys†OSAS. And the biblical texts very much disagrees with your point #2.

That’s why my feedback to you OP argument is that it’s not biblically based, nor what James is saying in James 2.

James (within all of Chapter 2:14-26) is clearly distinguishing between two different “types†of faiths, A faith that saves and a faith that is dead? Yet you say:

Whether verse 14 says "faith" or "this faith" or "that faith" or "said faith" or "whatever faith" has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on the OP.

and

It neither bolsters nor hurts my contention, which is why I only commented on it in passing.

You’re the one that put “saving faith†in quotes in your point #2. Did you forget that it was important?

It most certainly does hurt your “contention†since that’s the context of James 2 (comparing two different types of faith).

But to your point #2: James, never uses the word “backslide†in Chapter 2. It’s odd that you would be building a logical case from James 2 using a rather ambiguous word like “backslide†yet not explaining exactly what it means and where you find it in James 2. But I’ve read your OP several times and I don’t see where you show that Abraham or Rahab ever “backslides†to begin with, much less make any argument for how that “backsliding†removed them from their salvation or their “saving faith†as you phrase it in your point #2. They didn’t “forwardslide†into salvation to begin with. They “believed Godâ€.

But if you disagree with starting to read James at verse 14, fine, reading at verse 18:

But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.†Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. (James 2:18 ESV)
​

Then James proceeds with verses 19-26 to do just that, contrast two different kinds of “faithâ€.
You cannot accurately grasp, reasonably speaking, the meaning of verses 21 and 25 without first realizing these verses are premises (examples) right smack dab in the middle of his larger point (“that kind of faith†cannot save anyone). That is if you want to be fair to the text and James’ message (which he clearly narrates in the form of a logical argument).

James is very much making a logical argument in James 2 (the whole chapter). You first must correctly understand what his truth statement is (verse 14 “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? [no] (James 2:14 ESV)) He repeats it again, by the way in verse 18, just before your “kicker†verses.

It’s not logical or good hermeneutics to just pluck one verse to build a doctrine around. Or as you say “casually mention it†or that the larger context is outside the scope of the OP. You should have titled it James 2:21b if you didn’t want to look at the context of this verse.


But clearly verses 21 and 25 are part of the premises/evidences that he gives for his argument. Here’s the way I see James 2:

Truth statement: A “said faith†cannot save anyone:

Negative Evidences/Examples are:

1. (Verses 15-16) “fine/shabby clothes†[are no true indication of someone’s “saving faithâ€]. i.e. people can have a “said faithâ€, which is the “article†James means in verse 14.
2. (Verse 19) “Even the demons believe†that “God is one†[but that doesn’t save them]. i.e. Demons can say God is one, yet not submit their will/faith to God (the faith that Abraham had).
​

Positive Evidences/Examples are:

3. (Verses 20 – 23) Abraham was truly saved through his “believing in Godâ€, and we know this because Scripture tells us it’s so (Gen 15) and we also have the visible “works†to “justify†to us that was true faith. His saving faith was “justified†to us (visibly) and God (in-visibly). Similarly:
4. (Verse 25) Rahab had a truly saving faith and we also had indications of that true faith to us through Scripture and her visible “worksâ€.
​

Conclusion: (verse 26) “26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead (fine clothes, demons), so also faith apart from works (Abraham’s sacrifice, Rahab’s hiding) is dead†[we know Abraham and Rahab, had a saving faith because they demonstrated it (and God’s word proves it) but God knew they had a true saving faith way before these two particular acts of sacrifice or kindness occured, nor were they required for the repentat thief on the cross to save him]

As for the hermeneutics of just looking at one/two verses in James 2, I agree with Voltaire:

“Woe to the makers of literal translations, who by rendering every word weaken the meaning! It is indeed by so doing that we can say the letter kills and the spirit gives life.†--- Voltaire



BTW (though off topic of the very limited OP scope to James 2, yet on the topic of “savedâ€, these are the other statements of James the show his opinion of what it "takes" to be “savedâ€. And I don’t see any works component to it. But that’s of course way to broad of a topic to discuss here.

1. James 1:21 Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.
2. 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?
3. James 5:15 And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick,

 

[chessman]

As James is pointing out in verse 23 “and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousnessâ€â€”and he was called a friend of God. (James 2:23-26 ESV). That’s sola-fide and OSAS in one verse.

No, it's not.

I suppose it depends on your definition of God. I hold to the attributes of God being (among other things):
1. All knowing (past, present and future) and
2. Faithful to His own
That type of friendship doesn’t come and go. God is not like Santa Claus where we write Him a letter each year (or week) trying to convince Him that we’ve been good. He pretty much knows that we’ve been naughty. Yet, by His Grace and Mercy, he still calls us His friend.

 

[dadof10]

I don't know. I do know the example of Abraham shows that justification is a process, which kinda blows the concept of OSAS out of the water.

No justification is not a process, sanctification is a process. Did God reject Abraham when he turned to Hagar? Did Abraham reject God?

Hi Deborah13:

Yes, exactly; the force of Romans 5.1 is 'Therefore having been justified by faith...' Completed action; standing secure on a imputed, righteous basis, by faith.

Sanctification is both positional (the believer is in principle set apart to God) but also conditional: there is an ongoing, daily duty.

I think the point you brought out is vitally important.

Blessings.

I'm not sure if the proper way to translate Rom 5:1 is "Therefore having been justified by faith..." or "Therefore being justified by faith...". The word "dikaioō" is in the aorist tense, which, according to Thayer's means:

The aorist tense is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations.
The events described by the aorist tense are classified into a number of categories by grammarians. The most common of these include a view of the action as having begun from a certain point ("inceptive aorist"), or having ended at a certain point ("cumulative aorist"), or merely existing at a certain point ("punctiliar aorist"). The categorization of other cases can be found in Greek reference grammars.
The English reader need not concern himself with most of these finer points concerning the aorist tense, since in most cases they cannot be rendered accurately in English translation, being fine points of Greek exegesis only. The common practice of rendering an aorist by a simple English past tense should suffice in most cases."


This is interesting because the word "justified" CAN be either something done once in the past or an ongoing process, unlike some other verbs.



My point is this verse helps neither you or me in getting to the heart of the subject at hand. "Dikaioō" in the aorist tense could mean either "has been" or "is being".

 

[dadof10]

OK, I've made a decision that I hope you all will consider. I've decided to quit my job, so I can devote more time to this thread. I can't keep up with all the posts, so the only avenue left for me is to go on Welfare until we can solve this OSAS thing for good. I hope you will all cowboy up (or cowgirl up, Deb) and follow me in this endeavor. I'm pretty sure we can solve this doctrinal problem that has vexed the churches for 600 years before they shut off our internet connection and electricity. Who's with me???

 

[George Muller]

"Dikaioō" in the aorist tense could mean either "has been" or "is being".

of course its written in past tense, the clear reading of the passage would prove that.

Ro 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
23 ¶ Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Ro 5:1 ¶ Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

It is amazing to me, that so many work so hard to deny the Work that He did to save all of us?

 

[Deborah13]

My point is this verse helps neither you or me in getting to the heart of the subject at hand. "Dikaioō" in the aorist tense could mean either "has been" or "is being".

You know, I have been trying to learn some of the Gk grammar. WOW, tense, moods, voice, etc. I started a couple weeks ago but didn't keep it up.
At that time I was trying to work out 2 Corinth. 5:20. Someone offered to help but I hate to bother anyone because I'm not such a fast learner anymore. My grey cells are getting old, keep having to go back and look things up!

In this verse would it be 'subjective' and would that make a difference? How does that work with the aorist tense?

 

[chessman]

OK, I've made a decision that I hope you all will consider. I've decided to quit my job, so I can devote more time to this thread. I

Is that a permanent decision our will you change your mind later?
What if you employer who is all powerful and all knowing, said, no! You’re my employee for eternity, like it or not. Even if you don’t show up for work, you ARE still my employee!

John 10:29 (John 10) My Father, who has given them to me,is greater than all, and no one [even you] is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

 

[MarkT]

smaller

Jesus was sent to find the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and through his disciples to save all Israel from the lake of fire. Unbelief, in the light of Christ, is not believing Jesus was the Christ. You can not say Moses died in unbelief. Jesus wasn't even born yet. Yet, the fact that Jude brings up the Israelites as an example - when they did not believe in the LORD, they were destroyed - seems to be lost on you. They were not saved from the anger of God; they were destroyed. And your other proof concerning Israel, Paul writes, 'And even the others (those that were not chosen at that time, because Paul said at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace), if they do not persist in their unbelief, will be grafted in. So unbelief leads to destruction.

 

[dadof10]

"Dikaioō" in the aorist tense could mean either "has been" or "is being".

of course its written in past tense, the clear reading of the passage would prove that.

Ro 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
23 ¶ Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Ro 5:1 ¶ Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

It is amazing to me, that so many work so hard to deny the Work that He did to save all of us?

Put your feigned "amazement" on hold. Why is it that anyone who disagrees with your personal interpretation is labeled a "denier"? You have this attitude with Jethro also and it's getting old. People CAN disagree with you without denying Christ.

The version you quote above AGREES with the "timeless" interpretation. It does not say, as Farouk's version does, "...having been justified..." (past tense). Do you consider your version accurate?

I don't think it's as obvious as you think. Here are the verses directly preceding 5:1:

"But the words, "it was reckoned to him," were written not for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It [justification] will be [present tense] reckoned [present tense] to us who believe [present tense] in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification."

He is saying that justification "will be reckoned" in the present tense to us who believe, in the present tense. Then he says "Therefore, being justified..."

He is talking about justification being reckoned in the present tense, why would he switch to past tense for no reason?

Again, I don't know for sure if this usage of "Dikaioō" is "timeless" or past tense, therefore in my opinion, it neither helps prove or disprove OSAS.

 

[dadof10]

Is that a permanent decision our will you change your mind later?
What if you employer who is all powerful and all knowing, said, no! You’re my employee for eternity, like it or not. Even if you don’t show up for work, you ARE still my employee!

John 10:29 (John 10) My Father, who has given them to me,is greater than all, and no one [even you] is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

Will he continue to pay me also?

 

[dadof10]

I see now. When we promotes our views it's because we are trying to "save you from damnation"

You just finished saying it wasn't critical to one's salvation to believe God in Christ might not save you.

because we believe your view will lead there.

So you've changed your statement then?

So we're back to your position of 'you must believe God in Christ might not save you in order to be saved?'

You, on the other hand, are only promoting your views because ours are lame. Got it.

Well, I guess you can claim anything makes sense if you toss reason out the window huh?

If the bolded statement above makes sense to you, carry on. Just don't expect others to buy it.

s

Others realize it is sarcasm.

 

[smaller]

smaller

Jesus was sent to find the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and through his disciples to save all Israel from the lake of fire. Unbelief, in the light of Christ, is not believing Jesus was the Christ.

I've shown several times in this thread that unbelief does NOT disqualify people from being saved.

Do you need to hear it again? Turn to Romans 11:25-32 and you'll see in black and white that enemies of the Gospel shall be saved as it pertained to blinded Israel at the time Paul wrote that. Then turn to 1 Corinthians 7:14 and you'll see both an unbelieving husband or wife of a believer is 'sanctified' as well, by their believing spouse no less. You can also add in all children, believing or not and all mentally challenged people to the list of those heading to heaven WITHOUT BEING BELIEVERs.

In addition 'unbelief' itself is a sin. So if you want to say that sin was not taken away at the cross for a believer who falls victim to the blindness that Satan brings what can I say? Unbelief certainly didn't matter to any of the parties above. I would think a fallen faith warrior would be accorded just as much grace if not moreso for being victimized by an entity more powerful than themselves.

You can not say Moses died in unbelief.

The scriptures provide that to be a fact. Those of Israel who came out of Egypt and did not cross the Jordan into the promised land died exactly for unbelief. This again has ZERO bearing on their state of salvation.

One can die in UNbelief and still be saved. I also know 'believing Christians' who took their own lives over despair/despondency issues whom I know for a fact were believers and I assuredly do NOT think God in Christ abandoned them whatsoever, period.

Jesus wasn't even born yet. Yet, the fact that Jude brings up the Israelites as an example - when they did not believe in the LORD, they were destroyed - seems to be lost on you.

I agreed they were ALL destroyed who did not enter the promised land and were so because as Jude says, UNbelief. All but 2 people over the age of 20 died because of UNbelief.

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

Hebrews 3:
19 So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

I doubt very much that 10 hail Mary's, 5 Our Father's and a piece of bread could have cured the problem.

but IF you think none of those people will be saved I'd suggest a re-read of Romans 11:25-32.

They were not saved from the anger of God; they were destroyed.

I think we've both agreed to that. Where I draw the line is in saying they won't be saved.

It is shown by them that they can die in unbelief and still be SAVED just as Moses and Aaron were saved regardless and as Paul shows with 'all of them,' even enemies of the Gospel who shall be saved as it pertains to Israel.

And your other proof concerning Israel, Paul writes, 'And even the others (those that were not chosen at that time, because Paul said at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace), if they do not persist in their unbelief, will be grafted in. So unbelief leads to destruction.

I'd suggest you are grasping at straws to try to eliminate Romans 11:25-32.

s

 

[smaller]

Others realize it is sarcasm.

If you'd care to address specifics have at it.

s

 

[dadof10]

I agree. The falling away is actually the world has become so hardened that no one will believe any more. We see a lot of it Here on a Christian Site!

A lot of it? I see just the opposite. Where do you see people "so hardened that no one will believe any more" HERE?

Do you believe in faith alone In Christ for your salvation? No? That's what I mean. Acts 16:31, Faith alone in Christ is the ONLY way of salvation.

Why would I believe something NOT in Scripture? The only place the words "faith" and "alone" are used together is is James, and he says we are NOT justified by faith alone. Certainly, I believe we are justified by CHRIST alone and His merits on the cross. Where we differ is on HOW those merits are applied to the person.

So, to not believe in the doctrine of sola-fide is the same as "unbelief"? That's pretty harsh. Where does Scripture teach this?

If one thinks," Yes, I believe in Christ but I have to do _____________ also to be saved." That is not the right faith to Get saved and be a Christian.

Repent, is to turn from your unbelief in faith alone and turn to belief in faith alone in Christ alone.

In my opinion, if a person does not believe this, one is Hardened from the truth.

Please show me where the definition of "repent, is to turn from your unbelief in faith alone and turn to belief in faith alone in Christ alone".

 

[Deborah13]

OK, I've made a decision that I hope you all will consider. I've decided to quit my job, so I can devote more time to this thread. I can't keep up with all the posts, so the only avenue left for me is to go on Welfare until we can solve this OSAS thing for good. I hope you will all cowboy up (or cowgirl up, Deb) and follow me in this endeavor. I'm pretty sure we can solve this doctrinal problem that has vexed the churches for 600 years before they shut off our internet connection and electricity. Who's with me???

LOL Well, that should lighten things up a little!