James 2 And OSAS

[Guest]

:

 

[smaller]

Ahhh, the argument from silence.

You insist on making up your own positions rather than having examples in writing from scripture?

lol

s

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Is that what you're saying?

No what I was addressing was common sense and logic. If you follow the thread back you will see what I was addressing to start with and I asked a question. Then I addressed replies and one dealt with common sense.

Then you believe that an inactive faith can't save, right? And you probably believe that (correctly) because acts of faith signify the presence of saving faith. But when the action of faith disappears action is no longer the signature of saving faith? That is illogical. And, as I've shown hard to defend by scripture.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Eliminate tense? Is this your answer?

No. In general, eliminate the search for tense beyond the various English translations of the Bible we have at our disposal. THAT is my answer.

So 'tense' in English is applicable? Really? You mean we can actually believe our eyes?

We don't have any choice. We're at the mercy of a few Greek and Hebrew scholars (not scholar wannabe's) that God has provided to translate the scriptures faithfully into our own language. I've learned not to question or challenge it. You can't learn Greek from a Strong's concordance. Live with it.

The best way to learn the Bible is to read everything the Bible says about a subject. False doctrine comes from lifting parts of scripture out of context from the rest of what the Bible says about that same thing. It's what Paul calls not rightly dividing the Word of God. You can't remedy that mistake with a Greek or Hebrew concordance or lexicon. Don't even try. Just go with what God has provided in your own language.

I don't need to know Greek to see that salvation is now, and future, and everything in between in our Bibles.

I do not desire and promote that. Scripture plainly teaches us salvation is present, future, and everything in between...provided you are, as the scriptures suggest, continuing in your faith in Christ.

So when we read 'ye have eternal life' even though it's present tense it really means 'not really, but MAYBE TENSE?'

s

As long as you have faith you are saved, right now...and for ever...provided you stay in that faith. Faith is the assurance of salvation:

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for..." (Hebrews 11: NASB)

But OSAS says I can stop having faith, but still have the assurance of salvation.

 

[chessman]

Chessman, you're making inferences from passages out of context.

That's certainly possible. However, you might notice that every single passage that I posted above does have the word "salvation" or "saved" within the verse. The topic being Once Saved Always Saved, they seemed pretty much in context to me. With the exception of the Jude reference to the Exodus, they seemed clear enough. Then again, Jude (talking to NT beleivers does say "put in rememberance" this aspect of the Exodus. I think Jude was making a point to them that it was fairly significant event that forsahdowed something that was indeed important for them to remember.

 

[smaller]

We don't have any choice. We're at the mercy of a few Greek and Hebrew scholars (not scholar wannabe's) that God has provided to translate the scriptures faithfully into our own language. I've learned not to question or challenge it. You can't learn Greek from a Strong's concordance. Live with it.

So, our English 'tense' applications are wrong? Is this what you are trying to say?

The best way to learn the Bible is to read everything the Bible says about a subject. False doctrine comes from lifting parts of scripture out of context from the rest of what the Bible says about that same thing. It's what Paul calls not rightly dividing the Word of God. You can't remedy that mistake with a Greek or Hebrew concordance or lexicon. Don't even try. Just go with what God has provided in your own language.

I'm rather fond of tense actually. Jesus died on a cross, past tense.

I don't need to know Greek to see that salvation is now, and future, and everything in between in our Bibles.

If the claim is against OSAS then tense goes out the window in favor of 'maybe' tense applications.

Examples of what would have to change?

Eph. 2:
2 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;


[No tense means MAYBE He hath quickened, maybe not]



5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)


[again, if no tense then that statement is false]


6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:


[MAYBE tense?]



8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:


[MAYBE? really?]

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.


[we gonna play the 'in and out' of Christ game too?]


14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;


[hopefully yer catchin' the importance of tense?]


15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;


If NONE of the above is applicable IN TENSE, then it's all worthless and blatant misrepresentation.

As long as you have faith you are saved, right now...and for ever...provided you stay in that faith. Faith is the assurance of salvation:

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for..." (Hebrews 11: NASB)

But OSAS says I can stop having faith, but still have the assurance of salvation.

OSAS sez that you ain't The Savior.

s

 

[dadof10]

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".

'Good deeds effecting salvation' to a Protestant instantly gets heard as 'trying to earn salvation'. 'Works' is the other four letter word of the faith in Protestantism ('law' is the other). Works instantly means 'trying to be saved by works' when used in a doctrinal discussion.

Lol...Oh yeah, I'm well aware...We have had this conversation a few times, if I recall. Very lively...

My personal take on this is good deeds (obedience) affects our salvation in the sense that it is the necessary validation that MUST accompany a claim to faith in Christ, or that claim to faith is not real...as James puts it, not able to save. I mean that's what James plainly says.

This is what I mean by we are not far apart on this. I look at it as our obedient faith is necessary for salvation, but that Grace drives this obedience. Grace always precedes obedient works, so it's really not us "earning" our salvation by doing these works. Either way, we agree that we MUST obey or we are not saved.

But somehow OSAS dismisses what James says and that an inactive faith CAN save, in direct contradiction to him.

So I believe that James is teaching we show our faith to be of the saving kind when we can see that faith in what we do, but I have a hard time believing, based on this and other scripture, that we are saved once and for all, no matter what even if we stop showing our faith to be of the kind that is able to save . I obviously can't get that out of the passage. It actually helps the non-OSAS argument, because he plainly says the faith that saves is the faith that acts, not the faith that doesn't act, or used to act.

You seem to be trying REALLY hard, almost as if you WANT OSAS to be true. Honestly, I wish it were true. It's quite comforting, though false, which is why it's, in my opinion, such a devastating heresy. It lulls the believer into a false sense of security. I have known MANY a "believer" who believes he is "still saved" even though his lifestyle is anything but in obedience to God's commands.

Could you please comment on post #309? I responded to you and, due to the volume of posts, you might have missed it. I look forward to your insights. Thanks, Jethro.

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=52120&p=810064&viewfull=1#post810064

 

[Jethro Bodine]

smaller, so I can understand exactly what your argument with me is, which part of this are you in disagreement with me about?

...salvation is now, and future, and everything in between...

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You seem to be trying REALLY hard, almost as if you WANT OSAS to be true.

Actually, I'm finding it really hard to remember that I'm undecided about it. But you can probably see that I find the bulk of the evidence on the side of non-OSAS. My sticking point is the question of whether a genuine, saving faith can really be later rejected. But it seems clear the Bible warns us against that happening, so it must be possible.

Honestly, I wish it were true. It's quite comforting, though false, which is why it's, in my opinion, such a devastating heresy. It lulls the believer into a false sense of security. I have known MANY a "believer" who believes he is "still saved" even though his lifestyle is anything but in obedience to God's commands.

I see the same thing.

The implications of the argument hits home for me in regard to someone I know who essentially walked away from the faith being told by me they weren't really saved to begin with. I see now how that does nothing to help the fallen come to faith since, as you point out, what's to say their repentance would mean they are saved now if it didn't before? It's exactly the lack of assurance they DON"T need at this time in their spiritual life.

Could you please comment on post #309? I responded to you and, due to the volume of posts, you might have missed it. I look forward to your insights. Thanks, Jethro.

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=52120&p=810064&viewfull=1#post810064

Well I appreciate that, thank you.

I'll take a look-see and comment.

 

[dadof10]

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.

That is an excellent example. I assume Jesus knew the Thief wasn't going to "backslide" while on the cross, but suppose he had? Suppose, while hanging there, he rejected Jesus, would he still be "saved"? I copied an article on these forums a while back that prove (to me, anyway) that the "good thief" was rebellious even when ON THE CROSS. Here is the whole article.

http://www.catholic.com/blog/matt-fradd/the-good-thief-mocked-christ

Here is the pertinent paragraph:

Two of the Gospels recount Jesus being abused by the two criminals:
"[T]hose who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, 'You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.'
"So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, 'He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, "I am the Son of God.'" And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way" (Matt. 27:39-44).
"Those who were crucified with him also reviled him" (Mark 15:32).


It seems as though the Thief actually repented sometime after he was hung on the cross but before death. I assume if he "changed his mind" one way, he could change it back, right? It's possible, right?

I'm sure the Thief made remained faithful until death, but what if.....?

 

[dadof10]

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

No, I don't. Here's my argument:

IF, to James, the word "justified" in James 2:21 and 2:25 means "shown to be righteous", then it is possible for us to be SHOWN that a person is indeed "righteous" and therefore saved.

The verses would read like this:

"Was not Abraham our father [shown to be righteous] by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?"

"And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot [shown to be righteous] by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?"

If it's possible for a person's "works" to prove he is justified/saved, then once he "shows" he is justified, AND BACKSLIDES, then "was never saved to begin with", is excluded because the person HAS SHOWN HE WAS SAVED, he has proved it by his actions. The only logical path left is he really WAS saved, and LOST IT.

Now, if you decide this is a bogus interpretation, what are you left with? The only other definition of "justified" is either "made righteous" or "declared righteous" (depending on your theology), but either way, these definitions totally destroy "sola-fide" because James is using "justified" in the same way Paul is, putting on the person ACTUAL RIGHTEOUSNESS, which means we are justified (made/declared actually righteous before God) by our WORKS.

Again, you can't have it both ways. Either James means we can prove we have a "saving faith" by our actions, which means OSAS is false IF we can "show" even one person who "showed" his faith then backslid (which is pretty common), or:

James is teaching our "works" actually make or declare us righteous before God.

It seems like you have to choose between the two, OSAS or sola-fide. You can't interpret James 2 the standard Protestant way and keep both.

 

[dadof10]

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.

Back at you, Deb...

 

[dadof10]

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".

Ok, I know that in my own life I have works as well as faith. I am not one of the one's that just gets saved, checks the list of things to do and then goes back to the old ways. In my opinion that person may not have been saved to begin with.

Well, maybe not. If there is not a true change of heart at initial justification, can the justification be real? IDK. I'm talking about the VAST majority of believers, like yourself, who DO change their lives, then maybe 5, 10 years later revert back to their previous lives.

On the other hand I believe there could be people that seem to do many good deeds and still not be saved by grace. But concerning that there is no way I can know for sure.

OK, this is the heart of the matter. Do you think James 2 is talking about "showing" the righteousness a person already has, or actually being MADE righteous by his works?

I went back and read James 2 again and I still don't see how that indefinitely proves that OSAS is wrong. Or how using the argument of not being saved in the first place disqualifies the OSAS stance. It seems to me that your saying that if I believe what I just said that I actually have non-OSAS views and don't even know it? Forgive me if am wrong I am not trying to put words in your mouth. At this point I am just kinda thinking out loud.

Please read my post above to Chessman. I'll explain in more detail if needed.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You're right. I did miss this in the barrage of posts these last couple of days.

These particular verses are not given for us to hold up to others and assess their faith by, though there are passages for that, too.

Agreed, again.

I put James' teaching in the same category as these personal admonitions to make sure we have the faith that can save.

Why? James says "I will show you my faith...". When he uses Abraham as an example he prefaces it with "Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren?". He seems to be holding Abraham's act of obedience up as evidence of his saving faith, for all the world to see. Or at least for the "shallow man". Isn't that how you read it, or do you have another interpretation?

Why? Well, I can't really argue with what you say. I guess I back away from using James 2 as a gauge to measure other people by because of the difficulty of discerning character (that which truly characterizes a person in all situations), as opposed to Abraham's actions which could not be misunderstood, or faked.

We recognize the presence of that faith--the faith that can save--by what it does. OSAS, even though it gives lip service to James, ultimately puts his teaching on the sidelines if necessary to validate saving faith. That's bothersome to me.

Me too. It seems inconsistent. When I run out of time or a thread is moving fast, I usually skim the posts, then go back and read them later. I missed this quote from you. I meant to comment on it.

It's when a person consciously and willing refuses to repent, that is when he has removed himself from the grace of salvation. And even then, it is the Lord who makes the determination who has truly sinned beyond reach of his grace, and who has not.

Very well put. It takes into consideration that all is Grace, that we can remove ourselves from Grace and that ultimately it is God who judges us. From your posts here, I don't think we are too far apart on this topic, and I see that now. I didn't see it when we were on the other threads, due to my pride and love of argument. I apologize.

You're right, we're not very far apart at all. You're saying the same things I am, that "...all is Grace, that we can remove ourselves from Grace and that ultimately it is God who judges us".

And I must confess that in our other discussions I could see that if I tried harder I could be more cooperative and give your argument the space it deserves and possibly reconcile our beliefs and find peace. I admit my pride wouldn't allow me to do that. So I apologize to you.

 

[francisdesales]

even in the face of common sense and logic.

I see what you are saying but I think that what may appear to be common sense and logic to one person just isn't to another.

I think there can be some emotional attachment to a position or way of thinking that overcomes the apparent logic. Perhaps this is what we see during the conversion process.

I would say that if they can really see the common sense and logic (not speaking of religion, using that term loosely) they could deny it opening but if they really see it they must know it's true.

Again, I have read a number of conversion stories - and there seems to be a resistance, for a time, to a logical course of thinking. Especially if one has been taught to think a certain way about a position, without truly understanding that position. The "environment" resists the logical position for awhile. And will continue to until it is overcome and that can take time.

[

I think what we are looking for here is agreement based on what we see as common sense and logic.

No matter how hard I try to get my head around God the Father sacrificing His only Son for me, there is no common sense or logic for it and then when I add even more grace to that, blessings, allowing for repenting to stay close to Him.....none of it is common sense or logic to me. It's just so big.
He's a perfect Father, I'm a human...need I say more.

I understand what you are saying. Our way of thinking is not God's way of thinking. How many people would die for an unappreciative person who could care less about the sacrifice? That is part of the gist of Romans 5.

God IS Love, and that reality goes beyond our comprehension.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

The best way to learn the Bible is to read everything the Bible says about a subject. False doctrine comes from lifting parts of scripture out of context from the rest of what the Bible says about that same thing. It's what Paul calls not rightly dividing the Word of God. You can't remedy that mistake with a Greek or Hebrew concordance or lexicon. Don't even try. Just go with what God has provided in your own language.

Good answer. One should look at the context, as well as the overall sense of Scriptures on a subject, since the Bible is not written as a systematic theology textbook - Chapter one, Trinity; Chapter two, Creation, etc... Some choose to read one verse and ignore another verse, such as in the given example from John 6 and those given by the Father, ignoring John 6:66...

Regards

 

[chessman]

It seems like you have to choose between the two, OSAS or sola-fide. You can't interpret James 2 the standard Protestant way and keep both.

I disagree with you on this point and would like to discuss it politely and respectfully with you and with an open mind to both your and my logical arguments. I will be polite, respectful and try to understand your position(s) and not misrepresent your position, if you will agree to do the same with mine.

Agreed?

 

[smaller]

On what basis is the non-OSAS group seeking to condemn other believers?

The basis of sin?

The basis of works?

The basis of the insufficiency of Christ as a Savior?

Any of these categories will prove insufficient to damn any believer to hell upon examinations.

And any claimant will fail the test themselves if their claims reside on any basis listed.

Sins are not counted against believers. 2 Cor. 5:19

All our works are as filthy rags which doesn't change after salvation.

And to ague that Christ is insufficient is the real argument, trying to turn believers away from God in Christ and make the person their own Savior/God, holding salvation in their own hands.

Quite arrogant, that view. And from my own experience there is a little dictator behind every one of these types of 'sects' who is going to be telling you 'how to save yourself from God.'

s

 

[dadof10]

It seems like you have to choose between the two, OSAS or sola-fide. You can't interpret James 2 the standard Protestant way and keep both.

I disagree with you on this point and would like to discuss it politely and respectfully with you and with an open mind to both your and my logical arguments. I will be polite, respectful and try to understand your position(s) and not misrepresent your position, if you will agree to do the same with mine.

Agreed?

Sure. Shoot...

 

[chessman]

Let’s start here, if that’s okay:

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? (James 2:14 ESV)
​

How do you answer James’ 2nd rhetorical question here? Can that faith save him? (Yes or No)
i.e. that "type" of faith (faith without demonstrated works)?