• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

James 2 And OSAS - Part 2

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.

No one is arguing that anyone but Christ "did it". This is a red herring. Please answer the question posed. Is ""Therefore being justified by faith,..." a bogus translation? Is it, in your mind, a "religious" translation, yes or no? Do you know more than Greek scholars, yes or no?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've shown several times in this thread that unbelief does NOT disqualify people from being saved.

The issue is once saved always saved not who will be 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.

Yeah. I agree. My father says he doesn't believe in God but curiously the word of God is in him. Go figure. I asked the Lord for him. Also God will save my friends. Why? Because I asked him to. We have a lot of power in us smaller. It belongs to God but God is in us.

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.

Unbelief is a sin? First time I heard that one.

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.

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.

It's an example smaller. In the light of Christ saved means saved from eternal destruction. It's not as if God is going to make us wander in the desert for 40 years.

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.

:)

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.

I have no doubt both Moses and Aaron will be saved. Yes, even though, by example, they did not make it to the promised land.

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

I quoted Romans 11:23

I take it the hardening he refers to in Romans 11:25 will not be for all time. Israel will be fully included, Paul said, 'if they do not persist in their unbelief'. Then he goes further by saying, 'so they have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may receive mercy. For God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all.' Romans 11:31 He says those who show us mercy will receive mercy. I take it he means they will come to believe when he says they will receive mercy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
Your pretty handy to have around gr8grace! Does the "gr" stand for "greek":-)

Like I stated before, if some would take the effort they use to disprove the clear reading of the scriptures and put that effort into faith in the Word, they would understand that the Kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
 
Re: James 2 And OSAS

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.

So how do you know if they were born from above, George?

Do you have access to some knowledge about whom God has elected and chosen that we don't have access to?

I didn't say that this person claimed to be a Christian and prayed to Allah. I said that they were a Christian in the eyes of God because of their love of neighbor. This is possible because of the Spirit of God, Who blows where He wills.

So much of what you said is a non sequitar. I didn't say anyone did this of their own ability or without God. I didn't say a person raises themselves up to be good by their own will without God. I simply stated that God can come to a person and move them to do His will. Romans 2 points out such an example of a person receiving eternal life because of the law written on the heart, placed their by the Spirit of God.

The question for you, George, is do you doubt that God can do this?

Regards
 
Re: James 2 And OSAS

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.

So how do you know if they were born from above, George?

Do you have access to some knowledge about whom God has elected and chosen that we don't have access to?

I didn't say that this person claimed to be a Christian and prayed to Allah. I said that they were a Christian in the eyes of God because of their love of neighbor. This is possible because of the Spirit of God, Who blows where He wills.

So much of what you said is a non sequitar. I didn't say anyone did this of their own ability or without God. I didn't say a person raises themselves up to be good by their own will without God. I simply stated that God can come to a person and move them to do His will. Romans 2 points out such an example of a person receiving eternal life because of the law written on the heart, placed their by the Spirit of God.

The question for you, George, is do you doubt that God can do this?

Regards
Well these things are to be judged by the clear reading of the scriptures, I have the scriptures as my evidence of truth. Now to somehow suggest that a muslim can be saved apart from an honest confession of Christ, is nothing but heresy.
 
Re: James 2 And OSAS

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

Romans 2 is directed at Jews who are proud in HAVING the Law. They thought that possession of the Law would be enough to be seen as just in God's eyes. Having the Law did the Jews no good, if you continue reading Romans 3, where Paul cites a devastating litany of failures of Jews noted by David. Meanwhile, Gentiles appear as "spiritually circumcised" in the eyes of God for following an unwritten law on their hearts.

Which Scripture makes this a false conclusion?

Regards
 
Re: James 2 And OSAS

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.

So how do you know if they were born from above, George?

Do you have access to some knowledge about whom God has elected and chosen that we don't have access to?

I didn't say that this person claimed to be a Christian and prayed to Allah. I said that they were a Christian in the eyes of God because of their love of neighbor. This is possible because of the Spirit of God, Who blows where He wills.

So much of what you said is a non sequitar. I didn't say anyone did this of their own ability or without God. I didn't say a person raises themselves up to be good by their own will without God. I simply stated that God can come to a person and move them to do His will. Romans 2 points out such an example of a person receiving eternal life because of the law written on the heart, placed their by the Spirit of God.

The question for you, George, is do you doubt that God can do this?

Regards
Well these things are to be judged by the clear reading of the scriptures, I have the scriptures as my evidence of truth. Now to somehow suggest that a muslim can be saved apart from an honest confession of Christ, is nothing but heresy.

So if a person never heard of Jesus Christ and the Gospel, they are condemned?

Every person ever born before the Son of God became incarnate is now condemned?
Every person born in the Western Hemisphere before 1500 is condemned?
Every person in Asia before the missionaries came were condemned?

That's justice? This is the God Who desires all men to be saved???

The Scriptures do not make statements of condemnation for the ignorant, George. Only for those who willfully REJECT the name of Christ.

Regards
 
Re: James 2 And OSAS

So how do you know if they were born from above, George?

Do you have access to some knowledge about whom God has elected and chosen that we don't have access to?

I didn't say that this person claimed to be a Christian and prayed to Allah. I said that they were a Christian in the eyes of God because of their love of neighbor. This is possible because of the Spirit of God, Who blows where He wills.

So much of what you said is a non sequitar. I didn't say anyone did this of their own ability or without God. I didn't say a person raises themselves up to be good by their own will without God. I simply stated that God can come to a person and move them to do His will. Romans 2 points out such an example of a person receiving eternal life because of the law written on the heart, placed their by the Spirit of God.

The question for you, George, is do you doubt that God can do this?

Regards
Well these things are to be judged by the clear reading of the scriptures, I have the scriptures as my evidence of truth. Now to somehow suggest that a muslim can be saved apart from an honest confession of Christ, is nothing but heresy.

So if a person never heard of Jesus Christ and the Gospel, they are condemned?

Every person ever born before the Son of God became incarnate is now condemned?
Every person born in the Western Hemisphere before 1500 is condemned?
Every person in Asia before the missionaries came were condemned?

That's justice? This is the God Who desires all men to be saved???

The Scriptures do not make statements of condemnation for the ignorant, George. Only for those who willfully REJECT the name of Christ.

Regards
Thats not the point you tried to make, you tried to claim that salvation is available to muslims apart from an Honest confession of Christ.
Also, I look to the scriptures, not mans logic. God is righteous and just in any judgment He proclaims, now those who have never heard the gospel will be judged by a God full of mercy and justice. But that does not take from what the scriptures proclaim, That a man must receive Jesus Christ and confess Him as Lord, he must be born-again.
 
Re: James 2 And OSAS

Thats not the point you tried to make, you tried to claim that salvation is available to muslims apart from an Honest confession of Christ.

No, that was not my point. I never mentioned anything about "an honest confession of Christ". My point was about whether God could and does send His Holy Spirit to whom HE wills. I bolded the word "ignorance" for you viz a viz REJECTION. In other words, the question should be whether God brings salvation to people who/were ignorant of Jesus Christ.

First, let's clarify things. I am not stating this as an "ordinary" avenue to salvation. We are still tasked with evangelizing the Muslim and the Jew. However, if God chooses to send the Spirit of God to a Muslim - which would be noted by a life of following the Law of Christ - even if they didn't realize they were, who are we to doubt God's power??? Can a Muslim love his neighbor without alterior motive by his own power? Or is it not the power of God within that leads someone to look to the Lawmaker of the Law of Love? Isn't this just such an example that Paul discusses in Romans 2?

Also, I look to the scriptures, not mans logic. God is righteous and just in any judgment He proclaims, now those who have never heard the gospel will be judged by a God full of mercy and justice.

And so this nullifies YOUR requirement that one must make an "honest confession of Christ" to be saved. God makes exceptions as He sees fit to uphold justice. The ordinary means into the Church is by baptism in the name of the Trinity. However, God is not bound to the sacrament, and can bring into the Kingdom ANYONE whom GOD sees as fit. Even if they never heard of the name Jesus Christ.

Regards
 
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.
I go by the fact that Paul takes it all the way back to when Abraham received the promise of a son in Genesis 15 when referring to Abraham's unwavering faith:

"...just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” (Genesis 15:5) 19 Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—" (Romans 4:18-19 NIV)

But your point is noted. I personally don't see how Paul would say what he did about Abraham's unwavering faith if Abraham had been wavering anywhere along the line (i.e. Hagar). And I explained why I thought his romp with Hagar was actually an expression of his faith, not his failing faith...just a little misguided because of lack of knowledge perhaps (he did not know Sarah was the one, yet).

Just my opinion, but you know what they say about opinions--they're like belly buttons...some of them probably should stay covered up. (I'm thinking 'outies').
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: James 2 And OSAS

God is righteous and just in any judgment He proclaims, now those who have never heard the gospel will be judged by a God full of mercy and justice.
That is precisely what I see in Romans 2. I don't really see how you could be in disagreement with those of us who see God granting the grace of salvation to pagans based on what they do know (and respond in faith and obedience to), not what they don't know about Christ, the law, and the gospel.
 
The issue is once saved always saved not who will be saved.

You and I seem to have some difficulty communicating.

The observation put in play is that 'if a person has once believed' and falls away in UNbelief, scriptures show those people are still saved and also shows unbelievers and enemies of the Gospel saved.

Do you understand this is what was communicated through those prior written examples?


Unbelief is a sin? First time I heard that one.
Ah, yes, it is. Unfortunately many people who post at theology sites are not all that familiar with the texts.

s
 
Re: James 2 And OSAS

The Scriptures do not make statements of condemnation for the ignorant, George. Only for those who willfully REJECT the name of Christ.

Many 'sincere believers' reject the false notions of Christ including the insistence that some other partial sighted 'sect' has thee only version available on the planet earth.

That notion is the greatest disservice to Christianity there is.

s
 
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.

And the example James gives to prove that he’s not talking about a Christian brother’s type of faith is that even the Demons believe God is one, yet they are damned not saved.

Then James says this so called “destroyer verse†in the form of a rhetorical question that supposedly proves OSAS wrong:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? (James 2:21 ESV)
And then James answers the question with a verse that ironically shows us why/how OSAS is in fact true:
and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it [believed God] was counted to him as righteousnessâ€â€”and he was called a friend of God. (James 2:23 ESV)
One must only believe that God knows how to pick a friend to see that OSAS makes sense biblically. OSAS is about God’s strength and power and persistence to His will, not about man’s abilities (initially or later).
 
Re: James 2 And OSAS

God is not bound to the sacrament, and can bring into the Kingdom ANYONE whom GOD sees as fit. Even if they never heard of the name Jesus Christ.
I actually agree with you on this point. However, it's an argument for OSAS, not against it. To tie this point back to James 2: Abrams' upbringing and culture (father, brothers, uncles, etc.) was way more Pagan or even Satanic than Judaism or Christianity. Yet, God brought Abram into His friendship. Changed his name to Abraham, made covenants and promises to him, told him his future, gave him the offspring to fulfill those promises (despite Abram’s efforts with another “wifeâ€), etc. OSAS simply states that God kept him there, warts and all.

So if God can "bring into the Kingdom ANYONE whom GOD sees as fit" does it not at least make a little sense that He could keep that person in the Kingdom? Not to mention the Scriptures that state that He does just that very thing.
 
Re: James 2 And OSAS

God is not bound to the sacrament, and can bring into the Kingdom ANYONE whom GOD sees as fit. Even if they never heard of the name Jesus Christ.
I actually agree with you on this point.


As do I.

It's unfortunate that it can't be discussed here as it is one of the 'throwbacks' from early christianity that still exists in some older sects.

s
 
Your pretty handy to have around gr8grace! Does the "gr" stand for "greek":-)

Like I stated before, if some would take the effort they use to disprove the clear reading of the scriptures and put that effort into faith in the Word, they would understand that the Kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

That's the point here, George. It's NOT clear if the word should be translated "being justified", AS YOU POSTED, or "have been justified", AS YOU SEEM TO BE SAYING, no matter what gr8grace says.

If you would take the effort understand what the argument is, and actually answer the questions posed to you (like the one in big, red letters above), you would spend less time on personal attacks and more time learning.
 
Re: James 2 And OSAS

I personally don't see how Paul would say what he did about Abraham's unwavering faith if Abraham had been wavering anywhere along the line (i.e. Hagar).


Well, Paul wasn't there and he had the scriptures as we do plus Abraham was a Hebrew hero. But all the same his faith was greater than his lack of faith. He was a faith warrior when compared to most anyone.
And then too, God threw Abraham's sin as far as the east is from the west. I guess if God doesn't impute it to him, Paul shouldn't either. :)

Just my opinion, but you know what they say about opinions--they're like belly buttons...some of them probably should stay covered up. (I'm thinking 'outies').


LOL
 
Re: James 2 And OSAS

Romans 2 is directed at Jews who are proud in HAVING the Law. They thought that possession of the Law would be enough to be seen as just in God's eyes. Having the Law did the Jews no good, if you continue reading Romans 3, where Paul cites a devastating litany of failures of Jews noted by David. Meanwhile, Gentiles appear as "spiritually circumcised" in the eyes of God for following an unwritten law on their hearts.


If I may but in here with my understanding of this.
The Law, having or not having, written on tablets or the heart is not really the issue. Either way it is the intent of the heart that shows true faith. The Jews had the Law and those who served the Law as serving the living God in honoring Him had a spiritual relationship with Him even without the HS indwelling. Those who served the Law to be serving the Law without their eyes on the intent of the Law though faith in God had a problem. Jesus said they were hypocrites.

Once Jesus died and Pentecost happened and the HS came both Jew and Gentile are 'spiritually circumcised' in the heart. It is that faith in Jesus as Savior that causes one to be saved not the law.

So really it always had to do with the heart attitude (King David, Job) that God sees.
 
I'm really interest to hear how those holding the teaching of OSAS address the fact that the doctrine doesn't appear in church history until the 1500's. It really doesn't matter what passage you quote or how you interpret it, the fact remains that it just isn't there? What say you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top