James 2 And OSAS - Part 2

[reba]

Yikes some one tell the IRS

 

[smaller]

Salvation by Grace through faith 'vexed the church for 600 years?'

What a joke.

s

 

[chessman]

Will he continue to pay me also?

Yep! The payment has already been made.

Matthew 20:28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.â€

You have eternal life. It’s just (get it “justified†J) a matter of how much labor you give in return during this first life. Some of us are lousy employees and other are good ones. However, we all take naps.

1 Timothy 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all [past tense], which is the testimony given at the proper time.

Paul doesn’t think you have a method to even give the payment back (you didn’t earn the money in the first place). It was a gift.

Galatians 3:15 To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified.

 

[dadof10]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

People do NOT decide "I want to go to hell", Deborah. They fall from believing the promises that there IS a heaven! They hear the promises, but don't see the results of a loving Father Who cares for their needs. "Ask and you shall receive". "Well, God, I've been asking "x" and I haven't received it". Now, it doesn't mean someone is asking for the lottery, but it can be something that would seem "reasonable", like to find a job or to be cured from a sickness to serve God or to pray for a child who has gone WAY wayward... "WHERE IS GOD IN THIS"???? We hear the promises, we hear the Word, but we sometimes do not see the results. And for some people, they give up on waiting. Their faith becomes a shipwreck. And it is gradual.

I am not about to doubt whether someone ONCE followed God. No one can see the internal motives, but it does seem, by one's actions, that the Spirit played some part in their lives and they were freed from sinful behavior. THAT is the definition of being saved - freed from the slavery of sin. Once they convert, perhaps they give up porn or drinking. They pray, they cuss less, by their fruits they are known. This is not "from them", since only in Christ can one act like this. This is why I am more of the thinking of NEVER saying "they never were saved", and follow Scriptures's lead to say that they fell away from the faith. They have given up on God and return to their former way. Does this mean they are going to hell? Heaven's no. Let us pray for people in doubt and who have lost their faith, that they hear the Lord pursuing them to return to Him.

Great point. This may have been the reason Abraham was "re-justified" in Gen. 15. He got tired of waiting for a promised descendant. It took too long.

Abraham did not know that the promise was to come through Sarah until after he laid with Hagar.

I cause quite a stir in Bible studies when I say this, but Abraham's roll in the hay with Hagar was actually an expression of his faith in the promise, not his failing belief in the promise. Paul says he did not waver in regard to the promises made to him:

"19 Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. 20 Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21 being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22 This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Romans 4:19-22 NIV)

This is the very scripture that made me wonder why the church liked to say Abraham had lack of faith for sleeping with Hagar. Paul said he did not waver in his faith. And upon examination, his laying with Hagar was actually a demonstration of his faith...just according to the limited knowledge of God's plan he had at that time.

It's a picture for us to understand that, as strange as it may seem, it is God's will that we try to lay hold of the promises of God through the law (Hagar) first. As surely as it is the law (Hagar) that does not bring about the Promised Son, it's still God's will nonetheless that we approach the promise of a Son that way first. In order that we might disappointed in the attempt and be led to that which really does bring about the Promised Son--the way of faith, the New Covenant (Sarah).

Interesting take. I just looked into it and here's what I found:

Chapter 4 starts out;

"What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."

This is a reference to Gen. 15 Let's continue...

"We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11 He received circumcision as a sign or seal of the righteousness which he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, 12 and likewise the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but also follow the example of the faith which our father Abraham had before he was circumcised."

Abraham's circumcision came in Gen. 17, but Paul keeps using the word "reckoned" obviously talking about the promise in Gen. 15...

"The promise to Abraham and his descendants, that they should inherit the world, did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith."

Now THIS seems to be more of a reference to Gen. 12 because Gen. 15 doesn't say anything about the earth or world:

Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by youall the families of the earth shall bless themselves."

Let's continue..

That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants -- not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all,
17 as it is written, "I have made you the father of many nations" -- in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. 18 In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations; as he had been told, "So shall your descendants be."

Again, a reference to Gen. 15.

At first, I thought that possibly Abraham "wavered" after Gen. 12, and Paul was talking about ONLY from Gen. 15 on. But the fact that Paul says that Abraham did not have a "weakening in his faith" and "did not waver through unbelief" coupled with the fact that Paul sort of "mixes" the promises of Gen. 12 and 15, means I have to rethink this.

I still think (until your next post, maybe ) that Abraham was justified by his faith in the promise in Gen. 12. I'll have to get back to ya, Jethro.

 

[MarkT]

Here's an argument for you.

The premise is the word of God saves. When the word of God meets with faith in the believer something happens. Something new is created. Why should that be surprising? After all, the heavens and the earth were created by his word. The OSAS people bring forth their treasure - He will not lose any of his sheep. God keeps them from falling, etc. Yes. But his sheep keep his commandments. One thing I like about the OSAS people is they bring forth their treasure and they show it to you. The nonOSAS people, where is their treasure? Some are very concerned with doing good deeds saying their deeds validate their faith. They do good deeds to show us their faith is genuine; it is evidence of a saving faith. They go to church, help the poor - evidence of their faith. O.K. But except for going to church, don't the godless do the same? Even better. Will their good deeds count for anything?

We were saved because God wanted to save us. To the OSAS people I would say God formed us to serve Him. Those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved. Those who do not believe will be destroyed. Jesus said many will fall away. Do we tell others otherwise?

To the nonOSAS people; Do we tell the followers of the false Prophet there is another way? Jesus is the light and the truth and the way. There is no other way. Do we tell people otherwise?

We can do nothing on our own. Jesus is the vine. We abide in Him. God formed us to serve Him. We will not lose our confidence in Him or in the One who sent Him.

 

[dadof10]

Yikes some one tell the IRS

They already know. They know EVERYTHING....My full name is dad-AP-of-teapartypatriot-10.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Deborah13]

Re: James 2 And OSAS

"19 Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. 20 Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21 being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22 This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.†(Romans 4:19-22 NIV)

Wasn't Isaac born when Abraham was 100 yrs. old. and when Ishmael was born he was around 85-86?

This scripture I believe was after God spoke to Abraham and told him Sarah would have a child. Abraham laughed and so did Sarah who was listening in (audible communication with God).

I do agree that Hagar is a type of the Law and Sarah Grace.

 

[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?

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.

Like I said, one has to work really hard at your interpretation and one would have to really want to deny the clear and evident meaning of these scriptures to follow along with your twisting and turning of words.
As far as I can tell no Greek scholar would agree with your understanding, so I see no point.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

MarkT,

In regard to Romans 11, I don't believe for a moment that any one Jew who died in unbelief is going to inherit the kingdom, but that is what I have to believe if I interpret Paul's passage about the tree and it's branches according to what you wrote in part 1.

Israel as a whole--those who are alive when Christ returns--will indeed come to faith in Christ and be grafted back into the vine. I don't see how this means individual Jews who died in unbelief will be grafted back in.

Overall, God does keep his promise to the descendants of Abraham, meaning those who are of the faith of Abraham. The operative word there being 'faith', not salvation in spite of unbelief. That's completely contrary to the gospel message.

Where there is breath there is hope (a chocolate kiss to anyone who remembers where that is--Amos?). Any person who once believed, but is in unbelief now, can potentially come back to faith in God. I don't condemn them. But if they die in that unbelief...it's over. The grafting back in is the grafting back in of living Jews who come to faith in Christ, not all deceased Jews who rejected him but are somehow grafted back in in spite of their unbelief in the promise.

You will have to remind me Jethro. What did I say about the tree and it's branches? And what does it have to do with a Jew who dies in unbelief?

I goofed. It was chessman.

I was responding to this post: http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=52120&p=811166&viewfull=1#post811166

 

[Mike S]

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.

You may not be so much of an odd ball among Protestants as you think. The whole of Methodism maintains that salvation is by faith alone, good works are the result of accepting Christ as Lord, and salvation can be lost. Methodism is not an insignificant part of Protestant faiths.

This question of OSAS or not OSAS is almost irrelevant to how we live as Christians. When we accept Christ as Savior our lives are transformed good works are a part of our new lives, regardless of whether they are cause or effect. I will continue to live my life as best I can according to Christ's example of humility, service, and sacrifice, unconcerned about what the combination of faith and works is.

 

[smaller]

Yikes some one tell the IRS

They already know. They know EVERYTHING....My full name is dad-AP-of-teapartypatriot-10.

Levity kudos on that one.

 

[gr8grace]

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".

NO IT CANNOT! Aorist Tense means a point of time! It is Biblical, intellectually and academically dishonest to say that the Aorist tense means "is Being". It NEVER means that. It is a point in time and is perpetuated through out eternity.

And the Clincher is the Passive Voice. We had NOTHING to do with being Justified, Christ alone did it.

 

[dadof10]

I don't PRACTICE those sins that Paul mentioned.

The key phrase you overlook, those who practice those things.

JLB

Oh, so you mean you dont do them as much as other people? Do you do these things on a daily basis? hourly, weekly etc... They are still works of the flesh. 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident,
And most christians do practice these things daily, but it does not mean they are not saved, it means they are walking in the flesh and cannot receive spiritual things from heaven.

I have only read to here on this thread, so this may be answered below, but I think he's saying there is a difference in living IN SIN, cut off from God and a Christian who sins then repents. Take the homosexual lifestyle for instance. There is a difference between a person with those tendencies who tries to remain celebate, yet gives into temptation, then repents and the person who LIVES their lifestyle outwardly. Both are sinful acts, the difference is the first person KNOWS it's wrong and repents, the second is living contrary to God's commands and doesn't care. He is in open rebellion to God.

What do you think James means by "justified" in James 2?

Yes, of course point to anothers sin, to justify ones own? That is not the gospel nor does it relate to the scripture in which we are speaking. The scripture says these are the works of the flesh;

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Now, to qualify this as to say well "I do not do them as much as so and so", is to excuse ones own flesh and to judge anothers. To make these scriptures a condition of salvation is to miss the point. Also I would ask you, do you hold yourself and those in your religion to this standard?

Sorry, I'm not biting. I've dealt with people who use your tactics for years. Quit trying to distract by personal attacks and answer the question posed to you. It is DIRECTLY related to the OP. Here it is again:

What do you think James means by the word "justified" in James 2:21 and 25?

As far as I know, there are only two definitions, "shown to be righteous" and "made/declared righteous". Unless you have another one, pick between these two. Thanks in advance.

 

[dadof10]

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

You must be joking.

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

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

 

[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.

Like I said, one has to work really hard at your interpretation and one would have to really want to deny the clear and evident meaning of these scriptures to follow along with your twisting and turning of words.
As far as I can tell no Greek scholar would agree with your understanding, so I see no point.

Well, at least ONE Greek scholar agrees with me, the one who translated the verse "Therefore, BEING justified...", which you posted above.

Don't you consider this Greek scholar or scholars accurate? If not, why are you posting from their translation?

 

[gr8grace]

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

You must be joking.

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

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

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

 

[gr8grace]

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.

Like I said, one has to work really hard at your interpretation and one would have to really want to deny the clear and evident meaning of these scriptures to follow along with your twisting and turning of words.
As far as I can tell no Greek scholar would agree with your understanding, so I see no point.

Well, at least ONE Greek scholar agrees with me, the one who translated the verse "Therefore, BEING justified...", which you posted above.

Don't you consider this Greek scholar or scholars accurate? If not, why are you posting from their translation?

Just read the definition of what you posted again. Not even the Greek scholar you posted agrees with your final definition.( for crying out loud!)

Just to further the Point that you are dead wrong and putting fear in Christian lives, have at the pro's.

William H. Davis

H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey

http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html

26th ed. Nestles, Allen Text, American Bible Society

Gramcord Institute, 2218 NE Brookview Dr,; Vancouver WA 98686

 

[dadof10]

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".

NO IT CANNOT! Aorist Tense means a point of time! It is Biblical, intellectually and academically dishonest to say that the Aorist tense means "is Being". It NEVER means that. It is a point in time and is perpetuated through out eternity.

And the Clincher is the Passive Voice. We had NOTHING to do with being Justified, Christ alone did it.

Then this interpretation is bogus, the one posted by George?

"Therefore being justified by faith,..."

Do you know more than the Greek scholars who translated this version? Maybe, you seem to know my heart.

Here is the entry for Thayer's, which I posted, in it's entirety, previously:

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.

Here is the definition from dictionary.com

1. A form of a verb in some languages, such as Classical Greek, that expresses action without indicating its completion or continuation.
2. A form of a verb in some languages, such as Classical Greek or Sanskrit, that in the indicative mood expresses past action.

As I've been saying, I don't know if the proper way to translate this verse is "have been" or "is being". They are both used in various interpretations. It seems logical, then, to NOT use it to either prove or disprove this doctrine.

Sorry, you are simply wrong. It can be translated as "being justified". It was in whatever version George used above.

 

[gr8grace]

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".

NO IT CANNOT! Aorist Tense means a point of time! It is Biblical, intellectually and academically dishonest to say that the Aorist tense means "is Being". It NEVER means that. It is a point in time and is perpetuated through out eternity.

And the Clincher is the Passive Voice. We had NOTHING to do with being Justified, Christ alone did it.

Then this interpretation is bogus, the one posted by George?

"Therefore being justified by faith,..."

Do you know more than the Greek scholars who translated this version? Maybe, you seem to know my heart.

Here is the entry for Thayer's, which I posted, in it's entirety, previously:

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.

Here is the definition from dictionary.com

1. A form of a verb in some languages, such as Classical Greek, that expresses action without indicating its completion or continuation.
2. A form of a verb in some languages, such as Classical Greek or Sanskrit, that in the indicative mood expresses past action.

As I've been saying, I don't know if the proper way to translate this verse is "have been" or "is being". They are both used in various interpretations. It seems logical, then, to NOT use it to either prove or disprove this doctrine.

Sorry, you are simply wrong. It can be translated as "being justified". It was in whatever version George used above.

It can be translated that way for religion. For Christianity and the Koine Greek it cannot.

In thayers Def. that is why He said that the "concept of the verb is considered" with out regard to past , present......

The concept of the verb is Justified, No matter what ,where , when or how.......the concept carries.....Justified. Which is perpetuated through out eternity.

Even Thayer recognizes this. That is why He says the common practice is to put it in the PAST tense, Because it really does not matter, It is perpetuated through eternity. If it has happened it will continue to happen.

Plus once again, it is in the Passive voice, so all our arguing means nothing. The passive voice puts the Nail in the coffin for your interpretation. Christ did it. We Did not and do not.

 

[dadof10]

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

You must be joking.

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

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

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

This is embarrassing. You are totally wrong... I'll let James' words speak for themselves:

14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

James is talking TO BROTHERS ABOUT BROTHERS. He is saying that people of FAITH (e.g. brothers) must OBEY GOD or their faith IN CHRIST can't save them.

Sorry, wrong again. Notice I didn't play the "dishonest" card here? I understand there are differences in our interpretations and I can defend my position without demonizing my opponent. Can you?



"