James 2 And OSAS - Part 2

[Deborah13]

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?

 

[farouk]

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.

 

[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? Something happened between Gen. 12 and 15 that made it necessary for God to "reckon righteous" Abraham in Gen. 15. The thing that jumps off the pages is his doubting God could fulfill His promise, no matter how long it took.

The words counted and righteous, have more than one meaning.

This is the link to http://v3.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=15&t=KJV&ss=1

Genesis 15:6

And he believed H539 in the LORD; H3068 and he counted H2803 it to him for righteousness. H6666


http://v3.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Rom&c=4&t=KJV

Romans 4

AND I'll bet you that you use this site already you know what it says.

Found righteous does not always mean "justified onto salvation". God can find someone righteous for their belief. No works involved.

At the time of Abraham, Jesus had not given His life yet. His blood did not cover Abraham, but Abraham had faith and God gave him grace, when he messed up with Hagar.

Blessed are we, that we are considered righteous because of what Jesus did and our faith in Him is counted to us as righteousness for justification.

We CAN, however, reject God by our behavior. There is a difference between a single person giving in to temptation and a married person CARRYING ON an affair. One is s sin, the other a sinful lifestyle, even though they both involve the same behavior.

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!

It is people like these, it is the story of the lost sheep and the prodigal son that show me we have a big, Big, BIg, BIG, loving, merciful Father full of grace.

 

[jeff77]

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.

 

[Elijah674]

There is a sin unto death & a sin NOT unto death, James 1:15 finds a start & a FINISH to the thing!
And the unto death is I think found in 1 John 5:16-17?

And David repented in Psalms 51!
And one might find Psalms 19:13 of interest if they read from 7 on to verse 13. DON'T miss the Word of ALSO + PRESUMPTOUS!

--Elijah

 

[George Muller]

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.

Ro 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Looks like when God forgives, no one can make a charge

 

[George Muller]

But what happens when we remove 'faith' from everything you've just said? Even you are conditioning the manifest love of God in the giving of salvation on faith. Is everything you just said true if I don't have faith in Christ?

Like I said, it is possilbe to warn those who have strayed from faith, and have turned to works of man, without causing the young believer to stumble. You do not build the faith of another by bringing questions upon their salvation, that is to weaken their faith.

 

[George Muller]

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.

Amen, farouk. One is only as saved, in as much as they BELIEVE the promises of God. Doubt is not faith. If one is confident in Gods ability and promises, then one is in faith and the Holy Spirit will bring forth the fruits of righteousness

 

[smaller]

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

 

[smaller]

We should be careful to make sure we state the argument fully.

It is, "We should believe that God may not save us

That always makes me smile, the irony of such views. Can't say theology isn't fun when you get to see stuff like that...;)

if we don't continue to trust in the blood of Christ to do that.

ah, so 'your position' is that you trust "God might not save you" is the sufficient level of trust?

Where is that on the trustOmeter compared to trusting for a fact God in Christ is sufficient to save a believer no matter what?

The evidence of that end of trust being a 'faith' that has no deeds to validate it as being a genuine, or continuing, faith in God."

I'm certainly not against 'deeds' being 'sufficient proof' of faith, if that's what you're getting at. All believers have deeds both good and bad as a matter of open fact.

That, from my point of view of OSAS, is what is being debated here. Let's not represent the argument inaccurately.

I think the nail is hit with the views of the NON OSAS position.

You must believe that God might not save you in order to be saved.

Strange as it sounds, that is where y'all landed, even thinking it makes sense.

s

 

[George Muller]

I must say smaller, you have these guys nailed to their own doubts. They dont even seem to know what they believe or why they believe it

 

[smaller]

I must say smaller, you have these guys nailed to their own doubts. They dont even seem to know what they believe or why they believe it

I don't make my observations to their detriments. If they believe they must believe that God might not save them in order to be saved and somehow that makes sense to them, they must be 'fully convinced' in their own minds....;)

s

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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.

Ro 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Looks like when God forgives, no one can make a charge

When does God forgive? When you have faith in that forgiveness, or when you don't have faith in that forgiveness?

OSAS says someone in David's sandals doesn't even have to have faith to be forgiven and accepted by God. And worse, if someone like Nathan comes along and rebukes him for his failure it is Nathan that is in the wrong for doing that...you know, being harsh and judgmental and all.

Which makes we wonder...why doesn't OSAS cover the so-called wrong of the one who says the child of God who stops believing in the promise forfeits salvation? But it seems by reading these posts that is the person who isn't covered by the grace of OSAS. It sounds more and more like the unbelievers argument the more I think about it.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

But what happens when we remove 'faith' from everything you've just said? Even you are conditioning the manifest love of God in the giving of salvation on faith. Is everything you just said true if I don't have faith in Christ?

Like I said, it is possilbe to warn those who have strayed from faith, and have turned to works of man, without causing the young believer to stumble. You do not build the faith of another by bringing questions upon their salvation, that is to weaken their faith.

Tell James.

Really.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

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.

Amen, farouk. One is only as saved, in as much as they BELIEVE the promises of God. Doubt is not faith. If one is confident in Gods ability and promises, then one is in faith and the Holy Spirit will bring forth the fruits of righteousness

And you somehow think I have not been saying this all along?

No faith--no salvation. I don't care how many times you've had faith before.

The question is, can someone who had a genuine faith in the forgiveness of God abandon that faith? This is the element of the OSAS argument that remains up in the air for me. Not what happens if a person does not persevere in their faith. The Bible is clear about what happens in that case.

 

[George Muller]

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.

Ro 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Looks like when God forgives, no one can make a charge

When does God forgive? When you have faith in that forgiveness, or when you don't have faith in that forgiveness?

OSAS says someone in David's sandals doesn't even have to have faith to be forgiven and accepted by God. And worse, if someone like Nathan comes along and rebukes him for his failure it is Nathan that is in the wrong for doing that...you know, being harsh and judgmental and all.

Which makes we wonder...why doesn't OSAS cover the so-called wrong of the one who says the child of God who stops believing in the promise forfeits salvation? But it seems by reading these posts that is the person who isn't covered by the grace of OSAS. It sounds more and more like the unbelievers argument the more I think about it.

Not sure what some call OSAS? I will trust the Word of God and not the doubts that mans religion attempts to place on Gods promise.

Ro 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

 

[George Muller]

But what happens when we remove 'faith' from everything you've just said? Even you are conditioning the manifest love of God in the giving of salvation on faith. Is everything you just said true if I don't have faith in Christ?

Like I said, it is possilbe to warn those who have strayed from faith, and have turned to works of man, without causing the young believer to stumble. You do not build the faith of another by bringing questions upon their salvation, that is to weaken their faith.

Tell James.

Really.

Well I think james would tell all those who attempt to "unsave" other believers, that you are breaking the Royal Law.

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

So again, you guys seem to want to judge others by a standard you do not keep yourself? In this you are breaking the Royal Law.

 

[George Muller]

I must say smaller, you have these guys nailed to their own doubts. They dont even seem to know what they believe or why they believe it

I don't make my observations to their detriments. If they believe they must believe that God might not save them in order to be saved and somehow that makes sense to them, they must be 'fully convinced' in their own minds....;)

s

Yes, and they call this faith? Then try to teach this double minded stuff to others?

Jas 1:6But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.
8 A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

ah, so 'your position' is that you trust "God might not save you" is the sufficient level of trust?

Just show me in the Bible where it says I can stop trusting in the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins and still be saved and I will show you where it says you can't. Deal?

I've already listed mine, but I haven't seen you list any of yours yet. I've seen your strained inferences, but not God's plain words that say I don't need to trust in the blood to the end to be saved.

Where is that on the trustOmeter compared to trusting for a fact God in Christ is sufficient to save a believer no matter what?

You do know what 'trust in God' means in regard to salvation, don't you? Maybe you can state it in your own words so I know that you do.

I'm certainly not against 'deeds' being 'sufficient proof' of faith, if that's what you're getting at. All believers have deeds both good and bad as a matter of open fact.

But what OSAS fails to acknowledge is that when you don't have this 'sufficient proof' of faith you have a faith that can not save. I didn't say it. James did. And that's only one place that tells us how what we do signifies whether or not we have the faith that can save us.

The really difficult part of OSAS is even though it acknowledges what you just said about "deeds being 'sufficient proof' of faith" it will completely contradict James and insist that faith without deeds, or even no faith at all, CAN save a person. Do you want to argue the point?

That is completely and utterly non-scriptural, but it is claimed that non-OSAS is the doctrine causing people to stumble. It's nothing more than the tickling of ears. It doesn't have an ounce of offense in it, like the non-OSAS is said to have, but it lulls people into the very thing James said can't save--a (so-called) faith without deeds. So which doctrine is causing people to stumble? The one that says dead faith CAN'T save, or the one that says dead faith CAN save?

 

[reba]

2.5: Respect each others' opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.

Lets not ruin an informative thread by getting personal..... Not necessarily directed at the last poster....