James 2 And OSAS

[smaller]

Since I'm on a roll today I'd like to share a view of the complete and utter failure of 'continuing belief' as a STANDARD for a believer being saved.

For this example I'm going to use (scripture of course) ALL the people of Israel who came out of Egypt, saw ALL the mighty works of God in Christ up front, close and personal.

If any persons, such as ALL OF THEM could be believers, they had nearly continually open active proof that God was REAL and ACTIVE in their behalves.

Who couldn't believe after all of that?

Yet what did REALITY show us?

Every last one of them except for 2, Joshua and Caleb, who were over the age of 20, the age considered to be sufficient for participation in battle, died in the desert and did not cross the JORDAN into the promised land WHY?

Because of UNBELIEF.

I find that to be rather entirely incredible, don't you?

???

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 4:6
Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

Hebrews 4:11
Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

In the aforementioned bunch of UNBELIEVERS we also have AARON, THE HIGH PRIEST and MOSES.

Is any serious believer going to say that Moses is not saved or in heaven?

Now, the math here would indicate that there may have been as many as 5 or 600 thousand people up to as many as 2 MILLION people who came out of Egypt in the Exodus.

And exactly 'how many' of them made it into the promised land?

Uh, yeah, 2.

Even after all they saw.

And your chances are what? What?

yeah

do the math.

s

 

[chessman]

I agree he's talking about their sexual drive. What's the point?

My point is that we should primarily look to the sections of Scripture (by author and as a whole) that is specifically talking about the subject of Salvation to build a doctrine about salvation, not a section that’s discussing widow’s sex drive. You seem to agree that that is the broader context of this section of Paul’s letter to Timothy.
As long as we agree that that’s the broader subject (widow’s sex drive), then I can see where it’s theoretically possible to view one verse or even a portion of a verse within that broader subject to back-up or emphasize another subject. However, you better be very careful when doing just that as you seem to by emphasizing (possibly over-emphsizing) “wax wanton against Christ”, “having damnation”, “cast off their first-faith” and “some are already turned aside after Satan” to mean more than it actually does here, in my opinion. It is my opinion, but I'll clarify why I hold it as I feel that's very appropriate for the A&T section and appreciate the way you are dialoging with me on this subject.

However, I do find it wrong to think Paul here, within the broader topic of widow’s sex drive, would be contradict his teaching elsewhere about salvation (indeed OSAS) with these three verses. And he’s not, in my opinion. That’s my point.

For example: “Wax wanton against Christ” simply means in today’s language, “their passions draw them away from Christ”. Do you agree with this meaning of just this one phrase? i.e. that that’s a good translation of the Greek? If so, then that is not a proof text against OSAS. I find it perfectly consistent with real-life situations, then and now, and I do believe in OSAS. Our sex drives (widows or not) often drive us away from Christ (men and women) when it’s not in accordance with God’s one women/one man marriage context. Paul for example even says the very same thing for himself in Romans where he struggles with sin in his Christian life (i.e. his thorne in his flesh).


“12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith” could be translated “12 and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faith”. Both of these translations basically say the same thing, in my opinion. I see your point about it (that it COULD mean they have lost their salvation). You could be right and I could be wrong. However, toward my point, and my evidence:

1. One must be really, really careful here not to think Paul is contradicting himself with his other statements elsewhere about salvation. I’ve already posted some (but not nearly all as that would be several pages of texts) where Paul is clearly on the subject of salvation, yet those texts, to me, clearly teach OSAS.

2. “condemnation” or "damnation" from who? God or man? Recognizing Paul is talking to Timothy about how to run a local church with young widows in it (see verse 16), I believe he means that people are going to look down their noses at these young women. I do NOT believe he means God is going to forsake them if they believe Christ is Lord of their lives (sex drive or not).

3. “former faith” or “first faith” in what? Christ or their former husband and the commitment they had to him? Again, in the context of a young widow, I feel he’s clearly talking about the commitment they had to their “first marriage”. In fact, how could it be talking about their faith in God because their “first faith” toward God was, I’m sure, the same “first faith” toward God that we all come out of. Namely an enmity toward God.

4. “For some have already strayed after Satan.” which ties this whole section of Scripture back to Paul’s point of the letter (1 Tim 1:20) “among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.” (Paul calls them out by name in verse 1:20 but here in verse 5:15 he says “some have already strayed”.

5. Paul then wraps up the whole subject (further clarifying that he’s really addressing real-life situations and not teaching anything with regard to OSAS (one way or the other) with verse 16: If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are truly widows. (1 Timothy 5:16 ESV)

I have seen this argument used again and again with this passage by people who support OSAS. It's simply not logical to say that one can reject Christ, follow Satan and be saved.

I see your point with this particular verse and I personally AM NOT CALLING YOU ILLOGICAL for holding your position based on this passage. However, I do find my arguments more logical and preferential to yours, knowing that Paul (the same author) has said (while on the subject of salvation) things like:

Rom 1:16 (ESV) “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Rom 13:11 (ESV) “Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed.

2 Tim 2:10 “Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. (2 Timothy 2:10 ESV)

​

I understand none of these texts (or any other) says "once a person is saved he cannot lose their salvation". Though there are some that come very, very close to saying just that. That's why this issue has been debated for centuries, I suppose. I'm just getting caught up on the Scriptures and reasons why people hold the postions which they do.

 

[jeff77]

If your a non-OSASer. Do you believe that there are people (or will be people) in hell that believe in God. When I say believe in God I mean they believe that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and they understand the basics of why he did that and accepted the Holy Spirit, repented etc... But let's assume they were not active in their faith at their time of death.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

And your chances are what? What?

So what are you trying to say?
That Jesus died on the cross for maybe 2 people or maybe a few more?
Tell me, do you think you rate with those 2 people?
What's your point?
Tell us more.

 

[smaller]

And your chances are what? What?

So what are you trying to say?
That Jesus died on the cross for maybe 2 people or maybe a few more?
Tell me, do you think you rate with those 2 people?
What's your point?
Tell us more.

In case you missed it I was pointing out the complete FALLACY of 'continuing belief' as a basis of salvation or not.

s

 

[Butch5]

I agree he's talking about their sexual drive. What's the point?

My point is that we should primarily look to the sections of Scripture (by author and as a whole) that is specifically talking about the subject of Salvation to build a doctrine about salvation, not a section that’s discussing widow’s sex drive. You seem to agree that that is the broader context of this section of Paul’s letter to Timothy.
As long as we agree that that’s the broader subject (widow’s sex drive), then I can see where it’s theoretically possible to view one verse or even a portion of a verse within that broader subject to back-up or emphasize another subject. However, you better be very careful when doing just that as you seem to by emphasizing (possibly over-emphsizing) “wax wanton against Christâ€, “having damnationâ€, “cast off their first-faith†and “some are already turned aside after Satan†to mean more than it actually does here, in my opinion. It is my opinion, but I'll clarify why I hold it as I feel that's very appropriate for the A&T section and appreciate the way you are dialoging with me on this subject.

However, I do find it wrong to think Paul here, within the broader topic of widow’s sex drive, would be contradict his teaching elsewhere about salvation (indeed OSAS) with these three verses. And he’s not, in my opinion. That’s my point.

For example: “Wax wanton against Christ†simply means in today’s language, “their passions draw them away from Christâ€. Do you agree with this meaning of just this one phrase? i.e. that that’s a good translation of the Greek? If so, then that is not a proof text against OSAS. I find it perfectly consistent with real-life situations, then and now, and I do believe in OSAS. Our sex drives (widows or not) often drive us away from Christ (men and women) when it’s not in accordance with God’s one women/one man marriage context. Paul for example even says the very same thing for himself in Romans where he struggles with sin in his Christian life (i.e. his thrown in his flesh).


“12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith†could be translated “12 and so incur condemnation for having abandoned their former faithâ€. Both of these translations basically say the same thing, in my opinion. I see your point about it (that it COULD mean they have lost their salvation). You could be right and I could be wrong. However, toward my point, and my evidence:

1. One must be really, really careful here not to think Paul is contradicting himself with his other statements elsewhere about salvation. I’ve already posted some (but not nearly all as that would be several pages of texts) where Paul is clearly on the subject of salvation, yet those texts, to me, clearly teach OSAS.

2. “condemnation†or "damnation" from who? God or man? Recognizing Paul is talking to Timothy about how to run a local church with young widows in it (see verse 16), I believe he means that people are going to look down their noses at these young women. I do NOT believe he means God is going to forsake them if they believe Christ is Lord of their lives (sex drive or not).

3. “former faith†or “first faith†in what? Christ or their former husband and the commitment they had to him? Again, in the context of a young widow, I feel he’s clearly talking about the commitment they had to their “first marriageâ€. In fact, how could it be talking about their faith in God because their “first faith†toward God was, I’m sure, the same “first faith†toward God that we all come out of. Namely an enmity toward God.

4. “For some have already strayed after Satan.†which ties this whole section of Scripture back to Paul’s point of the letter (1 Tim 1:20) “among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.†(Paul calls them out by name in verse 1:20 but here in verse 5:15 he says “some have already strayedâ€.

5. Paul then wraps up the whole subject (further clarifying that he’s really addressing real-life situations and not teaching anything with regard to OSAS (one way or the other) with verse 16: If any believing woman has relatives who are widows, let her care for them. Let the church not be burdened, so that it may care for those who are truly widows. (1 Timothy 5:16 ESV)

Hi Chessman,

As I said, I agree the context is in regard to their sex drive, however, what is the outcome of those who follow those sexual desires? They become fornicators unless they marry again. No offense here but I think you're stretching with your explanation here. If there being drawn away from Christ and cast of their faith is it not the faith in Christ that is being cast off? If it was there previous marriage that Paul had in mind there's no reason to bring Christ into the statement. And turned after Satan, I don't think that needs explanation, I mean what else can it mean if one turns after Satan?

You also said Paul would not contradict himself, there is no contradiction between what I said here and what Paul says elsewhere. I've not seen anywhere where Paul supports OSAS. I am interested in seeing where you believe Paul has don this.

I have seen this argument used again and again with this passage by people who support OSAS. It's simply not logical to say that one can reject Christ, follow Satan and be saved.

I see your point with this particular verse and I personally AM NOT CALLING YOU ILLOGICAL for holding your position based on this passage. However, I do find my arguments more logical and preferential to yours, knowing that Paul (the same author) has said (while on the subject of salvation) things like:

Rom 1:16 (ESV) “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

Rom 13:11 (ESV) “Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed.

2 Tim 2:10 “Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory. (2 Timothy 2:10 ESV)
​

I understand none of these texts (or any other) says "once a person is saved he cannot lose their salvation". Though there are some that come very, very close to saying just that. That's why this issue has been debated for centuries, I suppose. I'm just getting caught up on the Scriptures and reasons why people hold the postions which they do.

That's my argument, that the doctrine is simply inferred. There is nothing that says a person cannot lose salvation. Therefore it can only be speculation. However, there are passages that say it can be lost. In addition to the we have the historical evidence of the teachings of Christ and the apostles. There is also the historical evidence regarding this doctrine which I've posted, that being that this doctrine doesn't appear anywhere in Church history until the 1500's. Certainly if OSAS was the teaching of Jesus and the apostles we would find someone somewhere in early church history teaching this doctrine, we don't. Therefore if OSAS is Biblical we have to say that the faith was immediately lost after the apostles and that they were unable to establish the faith. Are you willing to make that argument?

OSAS doesn't appear until the 1500's, that's 1500 years after Christ. 1500 years of Christians changing the faith from what it was originally. Would you argue that Christians 1500 years after Christ having copies, of copies, of copies, of the Scriptures finally understood what those who sat under the apostles were apparently unable to understand? The odds of that just seems to astronomical for me to believe. Especially, when I see that the early teaching was just the opposite. In addition to the I see the early Christians refuting this very doctrine in their refutations of the Gnostics. Are we to believe that the Gnostics actually had the true faith and the church didn't?

You see, this really isn't a Scriptural issue because people can find whatever they want in the Scriptures. You have those who claim all will be saved, you have those who claim some were chosen before the world, some who believe they simply say I believe and it's over, etc, etc. However, we have the historical evidence, we can look at what the very first Christians believed and taught.

I am very interested though how you see Paul teaching OSAS, please explain.

 

[Butch5]

If your a non-OSASer. Do you believe that there are people (or will be people) in hell that believe in God. When I say believe in God I mean they believe that Jesus died on the cross for our sins and they understand the basics of why he did that and accepted the Holy Spirit, repented etc... But let's assume they were not active in their faith at their time of death.

Yes.

 

[Butch5]

Since I'm on a roll today I'd like to share a view of the complete and utter failure of 'continuing belief' as a STANDARD for a believer being saved.

For this example I'm going to use (scripture of course) ALL the people of Israel who came out of Egypt, saw ALL the mighty works of God in Christ up front, close and personal.

If any persons, such as ALL OF THEM could be believers, they had nearly continually open active proof that God was REAL and ACTIVE in their behalves.

Who couldn't believe after all of that?

Yet what did REALITY show us?

Every last one of them except for 2, Joshua and Caleb, who were over the age of 20, the age considered to be sufficient for participation in battle, died in the desert and did not cross the JORDAN into the promised land WHY?

Because of UNBELIEF.

I find that to be rather entirely incredible, don't you?

???

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 4:6
Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:

Hebrews 4:11
Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

In the aforementioned bunch of UNBELIEVERS we also have AARON, THE HIGH PRIEST and MOSES.

Is any serious believer going to say that Moses is not saved or in heaven?

Now, the math here would indicate that there may have been as many as 5 or 600 thousand people up to as many as 2 MILLION people who came out of Egypt in the Exodus.

And exactly 'how many' of them made it into the promised land?

Uh, yeah, 2.

Even after all they saw.

And your chances are what? What?

yeah

do the math.

s

I'm not sure how this makes your point. Who is saying anyone can be saved who disbelieves? Why didn't they enter the promised land?

 

[Butch5]

I have a question for those who hold OSAS. Doesn't it concern you that there is not a single passage of Scripture that states one cannot lose salvation?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

How is it you do not see the sound rebuttal to the Psalms 23 defense of OSAS? It is said by OSAS that David is saying he is saved forever...that nothing can change the 'forever' of his salvation. But the very teaching of the old covenant--the time of the law David is in--says former righteousness will not be remembered if you return to your unrighteousness. It's impossible that David would not be in agreement with Ezekiel.

"Surely goodness and love and kindness shall follow me all the days of my life..."

Doesn't this echo Davids' belief that God will be there for him forever?
This is part of his eternal security, believing and trusting in God.

Yes!

The surety of our hope that God will be there for us forever is our faith in that hope. But if you lose that faith, you lose the hope it secures.

If you have this kind of faith then the fruits of the Spirit will be evident and the results of that will be noticeable good works.
I think James 2 is questioning if these people are actually saved.
They say "oh I believe in Jesus" but even the devil does that.
James is saying, "show me something".

That's definitely what he's saying. But OSAS doctrine resists the notion that works determine whether you'll go to heaven or not. OSAS can only see that as meaning salvation is by works, instead of what it actually means, that the faith that has the power to save can be seen in what it does. Therefore, it's impossible to be saved by works alone. But OSAS will immediately reject that. OSAS can be a very confusing and contradictory doctrine.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

This thread is getting dizzy.
If I listened to everyone on this thread I'd be in a nut house.

But if you lose that faith, you lose the hope it secures.

I can't relate to this. I know that I could never lose my faith nor do I know anyone who has.

James 2 does not address losing one's faith.
He only addresses that faith without deeds is dead.

 

[chessman]

Every last one of them except for 2, Joshua and Caleb, who were over the age of 20, the age considered to be sufficient for participation in battle, died in the desert and did not cross the JORDAN into the promised land WHY? Because of UNBELIEF. I find that to be rather entirely incredible, don't you?

Yes. But then again I thank God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) that we (post-ascension) Christians have been left with the Holy Spirit to convict us and comfort us, etc. I know there are examples of the Holy Spirit in the O.T., but not in the same way as we have today. So maybe, without the Holy Spirit, I’d be right there making a Golden Calf with them. I don’t know.

Here’s another broadly based Scriptural and related defense of OSAS:

And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ (Matthew 7:23 ESV)
​

Can anybody guess what the Greek word here (οὐδέποτε) means? You guessed it, “neverâ€. And there is no other optional or secondary meaning for this word. So “I never knew you†cannot mean “once knew you, then you left me†or “I forgot that I once knew youâ€. It plainly means, “I never knew youâ€.

Therefore, Once “I knew youâ€, always “I knew you†is plainly taught by Jesus.
Does “I knew you†then for all intensive purposes equal “saved†so that we could say Matt 7:23 teaches: “once saved always saved� I personally feel that is exactly what Jesus meant. And how does this relate to Jude?

Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. (Jude 1:5 ESV)
​

So any idea that “although you once fully knew it†means you “once fully believed†or was “once fully saved†is anti-Jesus’ teaching in Matt 7:23.

Just a thought.

 

[chessman]

If there being drawn away from Christ and cast of their faith is it not the faith in Christ that is being cast off?

As I said, everyone's "first faith" is toward sin. Not Christ. So it doesn't seem that's what Paul means here. All sin draws us away from Christ. Fornification is no different in that respect.

But I take no offense from the way you've made your point, nor do I mean any offense back to you. I see your point. I just don't share your belief that this text teaches what you're saying it does. That's all. but at least we both now know what and why each of us hold to our beliefs on this text.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Jethro:

Okay, so in the light of my inadequacies, I wonder if you could explain this to me?

First of all, there seem to be some precious promises in Psalm 23, for those with a simple trust in the Lord; (while Old Testament saints saw afar off the coming sacrifice of Christ, the New Testament believer looks back to the Cross). Either way, the assurance and peace that passages such as Psalm 23 have given to many simple saints down the years seem to be striking.

No question about it. But, apparently it's an iron clad promise for those who trust in God. Not those who don't trust in God, or who stop trusting in God.

Then, the P of TULIP referring to the Perseverance of the Saints, in Calvinist theology, is often referred to as a logical proposition; but isn't it an irony that many of those who refer to this Biblical truth which should in fact give a lot of assurance about the eternal security of the believer, are also often so taken up with law-keeping (it often being so emphatic in Reformed theology) that they themselves not unusually struggle with assurance, and so often feel compelled to keep asking, what more by way of law-keeping can I do? Don't you find this somewhat ironic?

The apparent connection with the law in non-OSAS is not in the vein of works salvation, but in the nature of what it means outwardly and visibly to 'have faith'.

Modern theology, based on OSAS, puts a large distance between faith and works (even though it gives lip service to the connection). But for those of us testing the OSAS doctrine we know scripturally that ultimately there is no such thing as saving faith with no works--works being the signature of saving faith. No works=no faith. You would probably be more inclined to say 'no faith=no works', and you would be correct, but in regard to validation of faith (the element of salvation that OSAS essentially dismisses as irrelevant), and it's role in giving us assurance of salvation, it is correctly stated as 'no works=no faith'.

It's a pity that the P of TULIP doesn't seem to do them the good than its apparent subject matter would suggest it should.

Again I would say it's because of lack of knowledge that this is thought to be true. The Bible speaks clearly about validating faith by works and drawing your assurance from that...but that is almost universally rejected as a works salvation doctrine because of a lack of understanding of what that means. It's the deadly block put up by the indoctrination in the church about this subject closing the ears of those who hear it.

Biblically, the source of assurance comes from your faith being acted out in obedience to the requirements of God. That's a very real and tangible source of assurance that the Bible speaks about, not what non-OSAS doctrine has contrived. It's not made up. But centuries of OSAS teaching have blinded the eyes of most to see it right under their noses in the Bible. It's scary.

 

[chessman]

I don't think that needs explanation, I mean what else can it mean if one turns after Satan?

I started to mention this earlier but I will now.

when Jesus said to Peter, "get behind me Satan" do you think that he meant Peter was "un-saved" at that point in his life or Jesus merely meant that Peter was having sinful thoughts/actions, driven by that age-old war with Satan and sin?

I take "“For some have already strayed after Satan.” basically to mean the same thing that was occuring to Peter at the time. He was acting in accordance with the flesh and/or even Satan's will. But equating that one phrase to mean Peter or a young widow would not ultimately be saved is clearly "stretching" things. Beyound what is plain, anyway. But I see your point.

 

[chessman]

I have a question for those who hold OSAS. Doesn't it concern you that there is not a single passage of Scripture that states one cannot lose salvation?

And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ (Matthew 7:23 ESV)

If Jesus knows you, you will not NEVER be told to depart. How's that for one Scripture?

 

[chessman]

Do you believe that there are people (or will be people) in hell that believe in God.

Yes.

John 6:37 (ESV)All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

 

[Butch5]

Do you believe that there are people (or will be people) in hell that believe in God.

Yes.

John 6:37 (ESV)All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

That's true, He didn't cast any of those men out. Only one was lost and that was Judas but he wasn't cast out he betrayed Christ.

 

[Butch5]

I have a question for those who hold OSAS. Doesn't it concern you that there is not a single passage of Scripture that states one cannot lose salvation?

And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ (Matthew 7:23 ESV)

If Jesus knows you, you will not NEVER be told to depart. How's that for one Scripture?

Hi chessman,

That's still by implication. However, to hold that view you're required to accept that people are able to cast out demons and do miraculous works in Christ's name, who are not Christians.

 

[Butch5]

I don't think that needs explanation, I mean what else can it mean if one turns after Satan?

I started to mention this earlier but I will now.

when Jesus said to Peter, "get behind me Satan" do you think that he meant Peter was "un-saved" at that point in his life or Jesus merely that Peter was having sinful thoughts/actions, driven by that age-old war with Satan and sin?

I take "“For some have already strayed after Satan.†basically to mean the same thing that was occuring to Peter at the time. He was acting in accordance with the flesh and/or even Satan's will. But equating that one phrase to mean Peter or a young widow would not ultimately be saved is clearly "stretching" things. Beyound what is plain, anyway. But I see your point.

I don't think it's stretching at all. Satan means adversary. When Jesus said that to Peter I don't believe He was referring to the angel we call Satan but rather that Peter was being adversarial to the purpose of God at that time. However, Paul says some of those widows had already turned aside after Satan. Even if we say Satan means adversary here, Paul is still saying that these women have lost their love for Christ and turned after the adversary. Peter wasn't turning against Christ , he simply didn't understand what Jesus was doing and was inadvertently being adversarial. On the other hand Paul said these widows had grown cold in their love of Christ, cast off their faith and turned after Satan or the adversary. I don't see any connect between What Paul said here and what happened with Peter.