James 2 And OSAS

[smaller]

Scripture often interprets Scripture.

Obviously none of you are going to care much for 'tense' applications are you?

Are you going to use scripture to eliminate 'tense?'

LOL

s

 

[smaller]

This Scripture has been addressed numerous times here. And the problem is the PRESUMPTION that YOU are one of the called.

In your little theological world exactly no one can say for sure they are called.

only that they MIGHT BE.

s

 

[francisdesales]

I am satisfied with using scripture.

R U?

They wrested the scriptures to their OWN destruction.

Hey, that's what U DO!

go figure.

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Why you guys try so hard to eternally torture or eradicate yourself is pretty strange isn't it?

lol

s

Uh, yea, whatever. The fact remains, people can misinterpret Scriptures. Just because you can read doesn't mean you understand them.

The 'fact' is FD, you are not saved.

You MIGHT be saved. And that is from your own testimony.

Here then is your testimony of faith:

"I AM NOT SAVED."

Sorry to pull the blanket off you.

s

And here is the crux of your problem.

You THINK you know what I mean when I speak of salvation. You seem to believe that it only has one meaning, in my mind. You think you got all the answers, pope smaller...

FORGET about what Christianity taught for a thousand years. what is important is what smaller came up with...

What is interesting is that I have not defined salvation for you yet. You just insert your ideas in and use your usual bag of tricks of logical fallacy and false definitions and strawman built up..

Yes, I was saved, and all the BIBLICAL connotations of that have been applied and they are not taken away. IN ADDITION, ALL MEN WILL BE JUDGED BASED ON WHAT THEY DO ON EARTH. That is not taken away, either, despite your subjective decision to think you are called by the Father to eternal salvation in heaven.

You might want to include all of THOSE verses, also, in your "theology".

Now, since you enjoy your strawman conversations, I'll bow out and let you continue to talk to yourself. Nothing positive can come from this discussion, especially when you base it upon bluster and condescension.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The scriptures plainly tell us how we can have the assurance of salvation. In fact, the scriptures tell us how to 'make our calling and election sure'. Not for God's sake, but for ours (he already knows who belongs to him). But OSAS essentially dismisses those passages in the event somebody does fail in their faith, insisting they are saved to the end no matter what. But out of the other side of it's mouth saying the one who fails was never saved to begin with. Confusing, to say the least.

(New smilie? I like it. It'll come in handy around here, lol. )

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Scripture often interprets Scripture.

Obviously none of you are going to care much for 'tense' applications are you?

Are you going to use scripture to eliminate 'tense?'

LOL

s

Honestly, I think it's not necessary.

Like too many doctrinal disputes, they get so over-thought that it sinks down into utter confusion. Usually, by the time you get to examining Greek or Hebrew words you've already come to that 'over-thought' place. (Honestly, I think it mostly futile to resort to Greek/ Hebrew studies to resolve a doctrinal conflict.)

Since there is no other compelling evidence to suggest we can't, let's just go with the plain scriptures on this one. If you're faith fails, you no longer have the assurance of that faith. We are "protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Peter 1:5 NASB). How is it we can forfeit that protection (our faith) and still expect to be protected for a salvation that will be revealed on the Day of Wrath?

 

[jeff77]

Like too many doctrinal disputes, they get so over-thought that it sinks down into utter confusion.

After reading the many post since last night, that's about how I feel "utterly confused". I am not sure why believing that someone may have not been saved in the first place hurts the OSAS belief. Haven't some of you said that? When I say that someone realizes that they were not saved in the first place and then upon their realization of that decide to become saved it doesn't mean they had it and then lost it. It simply means they never had it to begin with.
Can we look at some examples like maybe a Christian pastor that turns into an athiest? I don't know any but I'm sure it's happened.
I had a few more things to say, but my lunch break is about over. Why don't FD and smaller be a little more Christ-like in the way we talk to each other. It doesn't look good when you insult eachother. I

 

[WIP]

I haven't been here for a few days to follow this thread but the last page or two is enough. Please refrain from the personal insults and attacks and stay on topic. Thanks.

 

[Grappler]

The standard OSAS line for people who revert back to their previous lives after conversion is "he was never really saved in the first place".

To put it another way, most of the backsliders who "saved" Christians would consider "never really saved...", have, in the past, "showed" or PROVED they really were saved and simply lost this salvation.

Hi dad, just a short comment. I know you freely say you like to argue and I admire your frankness in that.

One thing I notice with people who want to refute OSAS put ALL people who believe OSAS in the same group. In other words they want others to think that ALL OSAS people believe what I have quoted from you.

I emphatically state that that is NOT what I believe and there are others of the 'free grace' 'unmerited favor' who do not believe that either.
What you state about "never were saved" all though that may be true in some cases, not ALL cases.

Personally, I hold that the Lord will hold tight to that person as far as their salvation goes, but He will allow them to backslide or fall if they so choose. However, He will work the circumstances in their life that they will see His goodness and repent or He will take them out of this world so that they do not loose their souls.
"some may have to be starving and wallowing in pig poop before they swallow their pride and go home". For some reason the "good" Christian just gets really upset about that, why can't they rejoice in the fact that the Lord will accomplish His work in the believer?

Blessing Deb

Well put.

 

[Grappler]

Like too many doctrinal disputes, they get so over-thought that it sinks down into utter confusion.

After reading the many post since last night, that's about how I feel "utterly confused". I am not sure why believing that someone may have not been saved in the first place hurts the OSAS belief. Haven't some of you said that? When I say that someone realizes that they were not saved in the first place and then upon their realization of that decide to become saved it doesn't mean they had it and then lost it. It simply means they never had it to begin with.
Can we look at some examples like maybe a Christian pastor that turns into an athiest? I don't know any but I'm sure it's happened.
I had a few more things to say, but my lunch break is about over. Why don't FD and smaller be a little more Christ-like in the way we talk to each other. It doesn't look good when you insult eachother. I

I agree jeff this insulting is not very Christ-like.:naughty

 

[Grappler]

I am satisfied with using scripture.

R U?

They wrested the scriptures to their OWN destruction.

Hey, that's what U DO!

go figure.

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Why you guys try so hard to eternally torture or eradicate yourself is pretty strange isn't it?

lol

s

Uh, yea, whatever. The fact remains, people can misinterpret Scriptures. Just because you can read doesn't mean you understand them.

The 'fact' is FD, you are not saved.

You MIGHT be saved. And that is from your own testimony.

Here then is your testimony of faith:

"I AM NOT SAVED."

Sorry to pull the blanket off you.

s

And here is the crux of your problem.

You THINK you know what I mean when I speak of salvation. You seem to believe that it only has one meaning, in my mind. You think you got all the answers, pope smaller...

FORGET about what Christianity taught for a thousand years. what is important is what smaller came up with...

What is interesting is that I have not defined salvation for you yet. You just insert your ideas in and use your usual bag of tricks of logical fallacy and false definitions and strawman built up..

Yes, I was saved, and all the BIBLICAL connotations of that have been applied and they are not taken away. IN ADDITION, ALL MEN WILL BE JUDGED BASED ON WHAT THEY DO ON EARTH. That is not taken away, either, despite your subjective decision to think you are called by the Father to eternal salvation in heaven.

You might want to include all of THOSE verses, also, in your "theology".

Now, since you enjoy your strawman conversations, I'll bow out and let you continue to talk to yourself. Nothing positive can come from this discussion, especially when you base it upon bluster and condescension.

"All the Father has given me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." -Jesus :p

 

[smaller]

And here is the crux of your problem. You THINK you know what I mean when I speak of salvation. You seem to believe that it only has one meaning, in my mind. You think you got all the answers, pope smaller...

Resorting to petty insults is getting nowhere fd.

FORGET about what Christianity taught for a thousand years. what is important is what smaller came up with...

If the examples of history are to be taken from the history of denominationalism, then we will find them all killing each others and damning each others as heretics. Is that the history you speak of? You know, the FACTUAL version?

lol.

History will do you no favors if it's based upon what you want it to be.

But thankfully that is not all that history has taught us in the SCRIPTURES.

What is interesting is that I have not defined salvation for you yet.

Your definition came by the fact that you don't have it by your own mouth.

s

 

[smaller]

Honestly, I think it's not necessary.

Like too many doctrinal disputes, they get so over-thought that it sinks down into utter confusion.

Understanding 'tense' sinks down into utter confusion?

How'd you come up with that one?

Usually, by the time you get to examining Greek or Hebrew words you've already come to that 'over-thought' place. (Honestly, I think it mostly futile to resort to Greek/ Hebrew studies to resolve a doctrinal conflict.)

Eliminate tense? Is this your answer? It should be if we are to depart from 'having' salvation as a 'present tense' matter, as you seem to desire and promote.

s

 

[dadof10]

What does any of this have to do with your contention that we "non-OSAS" people think ONLY others can lose their salvation, and we can't?

Exactly zero of you take your own factual position when discussing against OSAS.

You all 'think' you are saved when you make those arguments.

Difficult for you to grasp?

The reality is that in the non-OSAS adherents, they are NOT saved, period.

The only thing they can muster is that they might be by their own understandings.

Now, tell me the truth that you factually have if you can:

You are not saved. You MIGHT be saved.

Is this true or not?

I insist on speaking with people honestly, and honestly you are not saved.

s

HONESTLY??? Really? This about sums up your "honesty".

"and by all means please try to read the details. ALL of you non-OSAS adherents believe you are saved as you post against being saved.
None of you can say for any certainty that you are saved. It is as your statement above, more circular reasoning."

How is this an honest critique of what I believe? First we believe we ARE saved (while damning everyone else, of course). Then we don't know if we are saved at all, all we can do is say "maybe". I'm done with you, Smaller. You are not in the least interested in HONEST debate. If you think stating I "believe you are saved" will keep the argument going, you will say it. If you think stating I "maybe" think I'm saved will allow you to use the word "sect", you will say that. I have told you REPEATEDLY that I believe that God NEVER "casts us out", but we can reject Him, and you have REPEATEDLY accused me (as you did above) of believing God DOES cast us out.

No, "honesty" is not the word I would use here.

 

[dadof10]

Like too many doctrinal disputes, they get so over-thought that it sinks down into utter confusion.

After reading the many post since last night, that's about how I feel "utterly confused". I am not sure why believing that someone may have not been saved in the first place hurts the OSAS belief. Haven't some of you said that? When I say that someone realizes that they were not saved in the first place and then upon their realization of that decide to become saved it doesn't mean they had it and then lost it. It simply means they never had it to begin with.
Can we look at some examples like maybe a Christian pastor that turns into an athiest? I don't know any but I'm sure it's happened.
I had a few more things to say, but my lunch break is about over. Why don't FD and smaller be a little more Christ-like in the way we talk to each other. It doesn't look good when you insult eachother. I

Jeff, do you think it's possible to "show" a "true faith"? Do you think this is what James is teaching in James 2? See, if James is teaching that it's possible for us to know if a person is truly justified by looking at his actions this means, once this threshold has been crossed, there is no more doubt about the person's soul. He is saved. If this person then backslides, the standard line of "was never saved to begin with" can't be used. We can see by his actions that he WAS saved to begin with.

It all hinges on whether you believe James teaches that when we perform "good deeds" we are not effecting our salvation, we are "showing" that we possess "saving faith".

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

If this person then backslides, the standard line of "was never saved to begin with" can't be used. We can see by his actions that he WAS saved to begin with.

I disagree.
Let's talk about the thief on the cross.
Jesus said to him, "today you will be with me in paradise".
Now, we don't know how long the thief was on the cross before he died.
But according to you, he may have changed his mind while hanging there, and so he died in his sins.
So the promise made to the thief on the cross may have been a false promise.

I don't think God works that way.

 

[chessman]

If this person then backslides, the standard line of "was never saved to begin with" can't be used. We can see by his actions that he WAS saved to begin with.

It all hinges on whether you believe James teaches that when we perform "good deeds" we are not effecting our salvation, we are "showing" that we possess "saving faith".

Of course if you believe James here is talking about a person that has lost his salvation, you lose that old "standard line" of

6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

Or the one Peter prefers:


But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.


But this is very true:"It all hinges on whether you believe James teaches that when we perform "good deeds" we are not effecting our salvation". Which is way more critical than OSAS to get correct.

For as James says:

12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

It's fine to be confident in Him, just not ourselves or anything else.

20 Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

 

[Deborah13]

Of course. I see it here all the time... Often even in the face of logic and common sense, people will cling to a position based on emotions and stubborness

So you are saying that they really did change their mind but based on emotions and stubbornness, they won't admit it?

Or are you saying that they really didn't change their mind because they couldn't based on emotions and stubbornness?

 

[francisdesales]

Of course. I see it here all the time... Often even in the face of logic and common sense, people will cling to a position based on emotions and stubborness

So you are saying that they really did change their mind but based on emotions and stubbornness, they won't admit it?

Or are you saying that they really didn't change their mind because they couldn't based on emotions and stubbornness?

I am saying that people refuse to change their minds on a number of subjects, even in the face of common sense and logic. This can be on subjects nothing to do with religion.

Wouldn't you agree?

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

And here is the crux of your problem. You THINK you know what I mean when I speak of salvation. You seem to believe that it only has one meaning, in my mind. You think you got all the answers, pope smaller...

Resorting to petty insults is getting nowhere fd.

It's not an insult to state that you don't have a clue in what I believe. You act like you have all of the answers - including reading my mind. I have not defined "salvation" to you, have I? But you have determined it a priori.

As to "pope", that is actually an insult to popes everywhere in time, I apologize. You see, the difference is that no pope made themselves pope. Just your sect/cult/ilk/ whatever....

If the examples of history are to be taken from the history of denominationalism, then we will find them all killing each others and damning each others as heretics. Is that the history you speak of? You know, the FACTUAL version?

Cry me a river. All sects have their own sins. Well, I guess unless Christians are PERFECT, smaller will have NONE of that! ALL HISTORY IS NOW VOID, including the work of Christ, since the Apostles who gave us the Gospels are not worthy of relating it, since they sinned...!:gah

We aren't talking about that. At least I am not. I am talking about the non-existence of anyone interpreting Scriptures like you. Despite your proclamations from on high. You ignore it because it is true and you can't handle that. So you must divert attention away.

The fact of the matter is that you contine to ignore the reality of 1500 years of Christian theological thinking. Forget about a few Christians who went overboard. I am talking about people who MEMORIZED the bible. Yet, none of them talk about "eternally guaranteed salvation".

Naturally, you know better...

Nope, unless Christians are PERFECT, smaller will have NONE of that!

History will do you no favors if it's based upon what you want it to be.

That's why you continue to refuse to back up your mouth with evidence of proof of this "foundational teaching"...

But thankfully that is not all that history has taught us in the SCRIPTURES.

Yea, like everyone will be judged based upon what they do, to include the "saved" who toss away their freedom and fall into willful sin - and the blood of Christ no longer applies to them.
Don't make a shipwreck of your faith, said Paul.

Yea, ignore that. Smaller won't have it. Scriptures just don't back you up, nor does Christian interpretation of those Scriptures. That's a fact.

Your definition came by the fact that you don't have it by your own mouth.

You can't read, can you. I said I was saved, didn't I? More evidence that the only opinion worthy of consideration is your own.

I got more important things to do than trade banter with the likes of you. If you won't listen to Moses and the prophets and the fathers, you clearly won't listen to me, either...

adios

 

[Deborah13]

Now, what are you getting at, Deb?

Well, to be honest I'm really not sure what I'm getting at. It's the word 'repent', it means to change your mind/heart and have regret (be sorry). Can someone make themselves change their mind and regret or be sorry.

If we truly believe something there has to be something that makes that change happen.
Sometimes I think no matter how much someone may try to believe a different way than they do, it takes the Lord to "change their mind/heart".

We all pretty much believe that God is the one who draws us to Him and His gospel changes our mind/heart towards Him.
We tend to stop there at salvation and then think that sanctification can be achieved by man on his own, that he can just 'change his mind/heart'.

But the Word says that it is the "goodness of God" that leads a man to repent. And again we think of that as only repentance onto salvation and don't include sanctification.

I tried to explain but it's still not quite there.

thanks dad10, you are a pleasure to talk to.